Rajasthan High Court
Himmat Singh S/O Khushiram vs Daya Singh S/O Bijendra Singh on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8666/2022
Himmat Singh S/o Khushiram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village
Naiwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur.
----Petitioner/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Daya Singh S/o Bijendra Singh,
2. Ajeet Singh S/o Bijendra Singh,
3. Pawan Singh S/o Daya Singh,
4. Bhagwani W/o Bijendra Singh,
All R/o Village Naiwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District
Bharatpur.
----Respondents/Defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
29/06/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by
learned Civil Judge, Bhusawar, District Bharatpur in Civil Suit
No.23/2019 whereby, while allowing the application filed by the
respondents-defendants under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section
151 CPC, the written statement has been taken on record.
The facts in brief are that in a suit filed by the
plaintiff/petitioner for possession and permanent injunction, the
learned trial Court was pleased, vide its order dated 07.12.2019 to
grant the respondents last opportunity to submit their written
statement by 18.01.2020. Their right to file written statement was
(2 of 3) [CW-8666/2022]
closed vide order dated 10.02.2020. Thereafter, the respondents
filed their written statement on 14.12.2020 alongwith an
application under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC
praying therein to take the written statement on record. The
application has been allowed by the learned trial Court vide its
order dated 19.04.2022 on a cost of Rs.500/-, impugned herein.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to
have taken the written statement filed by the respondents on
record once their right was closed vide order dated 10.02.2020.
He submitted that while allowing the application, learned trial
Court did not appreciate that under the mandatory provisions
contained in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the respondents could not have
permitted to file written statement after the maximum permissible
limit of 90 days from the date of service of summons. He,
therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the order
dated 19.04.2022 be quashed and set aside.
Heard. Considered.
The learned trial Court has assigned cogent reasons while
allowing the application filed by the respondents under Order 8
Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. It is observed by the learned
trial Court that the defendants were unaware that their right to file
the written statement has been closed vide order dated
10.02.2020 and it was during the Covid period. A finding has been
recorded that if the written statement is not taken on record, it
would defeat their substantial rights and taking on record the
written statement would facilitate dispensation of justice. This
Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the order
(3 of 3) [CW-8666/2022]
impugned dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned trial Court in
exercise of its judicious discretion as it is a well settled legal
position in catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
time frame provided for filing the written statement under Order 8
Rule 1 CPC is directory in nature only and in suitable cases, the
Court can extend the same. It is also trite law that procedural law
is handmaid of justice and substantial justice should not be
defeated on technicalities.
In view thereof, this Court does not deem it just and proper
to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned
trial Court.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly being devoid of
merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/105
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
