Ramkishore vs Manoherlal
2022 Latest Caselaw 13562 MP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13562 MP
Judgement Date : 14 October, 2022

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Ramkishore vs Manoherlal on 14 October, 2022

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                           1
                                                 M.P.No.3608/2022


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT JABALPUR

                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                  ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2022

               MISC. PETITION No. 3608 of 2022

       BETWEEN:-
1.     RAMKISHORE S/O BARELAL, AGED
       ABOUT    43 YEARS,  OCCUPATION:
       AGRICULTURIST   RESIDENCE     AT
       VILLAGE AMOLI TEHSIL LALBARRA
       DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.) (MADHYA
       PRADESH)



2.     SMT. LAXMI BAI D/O BARELAL, AGED
       ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CAT
       LOHAR, AGRICULTURAL R/O VILLAGE
       AMOLI TAHSIL LALBARRA DISTRICT
       BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                            .....PETITIONERS
       (BY SHRI L.C.CHOURASIYA-ADVOCATE )

       AND

1.     MANOHERLAL S/O BHEJANLAL, AGED
       ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE
       PAWAR    RESIDENCE    AT   SINDHI
       MOHALLA WARD NO. 11 PANDERWANI
       LALBARRA     TEHSIL     LALBARRA
       DISTRICT BALAGHAT (M.P.) (MADHYA
       PRADESH)



2.     MOHIT @ LAKKI S/O MANOHERLAL,
       AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                  2
                                                           M.P.No.3608/2022


       CASTE PAWAR R/O SINDHI MOHALLA
       WARD NO.11 PANDERWANI LALBARRA
       TAHSIL TAHSIL LALBARRA DISTRICT
       BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                                       .....RESPONDENTS



      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed

the following:

                                ORDER

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order

dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed in Case No.RCS-93-A/2021 by

the Third Civil Judge, Baraseoni, District Balaghat; whereby the

application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 10 of

the CPC has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed

a suit for permanent injunction and vacant possession on 24.08.2021.

The respondents entered their appearance in the suit on 06.09.021 and

copy of the plaint including the documents were provided to the

respondents but the respondents failed to file the written statement.

Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application under Order VIII Rule

M.P.No.3608/2022

10 of CPC, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated

29.07.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court

without assigning any reason has rejected the application. In fact the

right to file written statement ought to have been closed taking into

consideration the fact that much more time has been taken by the

respondents/defendants and the written statement has not been filed

within the prescribed period. In such a situation, the impugned order

deserves to be set aside.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5. The trial court while rejecting the application under Order VIII

Rule 10 of CPC, had granted time to the respondents/defendants to file

the written statement. The application was dismissed after imposing the

cost of Rs.300/-. Admittedly, the suit for injunction was filed by the

petitioner/plaintiff, which was not governed by the Commercial Court

Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement

under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the

judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kailash Vs.

Nankhu, (2005) 4 SCC 480.

M.P.No.3608/2022

6. Admittedly, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been

invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In this regard,

the Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & another Vs

Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329 has held as

under :-

"(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

............... ......................

(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

............... ......................

(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.

............... ......................

(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counter-productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality."

M.P.No.3608/2022

7. In the present case, since the time limit for filing of written

statement under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. is not maintainable in view

of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash (supra),

the learned court below has not committed any error in rejecting the

application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 10

C.P.C.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances so also the settled

position of law, this Court is of the opinion that denying the benefit of

filing of the written statement is unreasonable, therefore, the learned

trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the

application under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC. No interference is called

for by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India.