Jharkhand High Court
Ranjit Kumar Singh vs Achintya Kumar Sarkar on 28 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 663 of 2023
1. Ranjit Kumar Singh, aged about 46 years, son of Raj Kumar Singh,
resident of Village Charhi, P.O. & P.S. Charhi, District- Hazaribag
2. Lalita Devi, aged about 40 years, wife of Ranjit Kumar Singh, resident
of Village Charhi, P.O. & P.S. Charhi, District- Hazaribag
3. Mahesh Singh, aged about 58 years
4. Satyendra Singh, aged about 40 years
5. Sailendra Singh, aged about 37 years
Nos. 3 to 5, sons of Late Sarju Singh, residents of Village Charhi, P.O. &
P.S. Charhi, District- Hazaribag ... Petitioners
-Versus-
Achintya Kumar Sarkar, son of Late Shishir Kumar Sarkar, resident of
Village- Kuju, P.O. Kuju, P.S. Mandu, District- Hazaribag
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Navneet Toppo, Advocate
-----
08/28.01.2025 Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel for the sole opposite party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, wherein, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 23.05.2023
passed by the learned Sub-Judge-VI, Hazaribag in Title Suit No.91 of 2019,
whereby, the learned court has been pleased to refuse to accept the written
statement filed by the defendants/petitioners. The prayer is also made for
direction to be issued to accept the said written statement.
3. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the plaintiff/opposite party has instituted Title Suit No.91 of 2019 in the court
of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-I, Hazaribag against the
defendants/petitioners praying therein a decree for adjudication of the
plaintiffs right, title, interest and possession over Schedule-1(A) and I(B)
lands and for declaration that the defendants have no right, title, interest and
possession over the same. He submits that notice has been issued upon the
defendants and defendant nos. 4 and 5 had appeared before the learned
court on 07.12.2021 and defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 had appeared on
10.06.2022. He submits that vide order dated 02.08.2022, learned court has
allowed the defendants to file written statement by 22.08.2022 and the same
was filed on 22.08.2022 and in spite of that, the learned court has been
pleased to refuse the written statement. He relied upon the judgment passed
by this Court in the case of Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v.
Kumar & others, reported in 2006 (1) JCR 112 (SC). He refers paragraph
19 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"19. The matter can be looked at another angle.
Undisputedly the trial court had granted time up to 19.2.2004
which undisputedly fell beyond the 90 days' period. Since the
19.2.2004 happened to be a holiday, the Written Statement
was filed on the next day. Had the Written Statement been
filed on 19.2.2004, obviously the court could not have refused
to accept the written statement as it was within the time
granted by it. Merely because of a fortuitous circumstance
the written statement came to be filed next day i.e. on
account of the date fixed being a holiday that cannot make
the Written Statement, filed unacceptable."
Relying on the above judgment, he submits that it has been held in
that case that even within the statutory time if written statement was not
filed and the court has called upon to file written statement, that can be
accepted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Order VIII
Rule 1 is directory not mandatory and that has been held in several judgments
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts. He relied upon
the judgment passed in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku, reported in (2005)
4 SCC 480. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may
kindly be quashed.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Navneet Toppo, learned counsel for the sole
opposite party opposed the prayer and submits that within statutory time, the
written statement was not filed by defendant nos. 4 and 5. He submits that
thereafter the defendants have jointly filed the written statement and in view
of that, the learned court has rightly passed the said order. He relied upon
the judgment passed in the case of Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and
others, reported in MANU/SC/1184/2023. He submits that in paragraph
42 of the said judgment, guidelines have been issued for early disposal of the
cases and it has been held that within time written statement is required to
be filed. He submits that sufficient ground has not been shown to condone
the delay.
6. It is an admitted position that the suit is still pending and the
defendants have appeared before the learned court and the learned court
vide order dated 02.08.2022 directed to file written statement by 22.08.2022
and on the next date i.e. 22.08.2022, written statement was filed. If such a
situation was there, the case of the petitioners is fully covered in light of the
judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of
Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab (supra).
7. In the case of Kailash (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the Order VIII Rule 1 is directory not mandatory and the court is not
powerless to accept the written statement even it is filed at belated stage.
8. It is admitted position that the court has allowed the defendants to file
written statement and on the next date of listing, the written statement was
already filed. Thus, the case of the petitioners is fully covered in light of the
judgment passed in the case of Kailash (supra).
9. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Kalra v.
Raj Kishan Chabra, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 465 allowed the
written statement to be taken on record in light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash (supra). Even 193 days' delay
in filing the written statement was condoned.
10. So far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the sole
opposite party is concerned, in that case the suit was already proceeded and
seeing the inordinate delay of pendency of the said suit, that order has been
passed, whereas, in the present case even issue has not been framed as yet
and written statement was filed within the time, as allowed by the learned
court. Thus, that judgment is not helping the opposite party.
11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the order dated
23.05.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-VI, Hazaribag in Title Suit No.91
of 2019 is, hereby, quashed. The learned court will accept the said written
statement, which is already on the record of the said title suit and the learned
court will proceed in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.
13. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/ A.F.R.
