The Tripura High Court allowed the petition seeking time for filing of written statements and held that the period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 and the proviso thereto read with Order 8 Rule 10 is not mandatory but discretionary and the rule in question being one of procedure was made to advance justice and not defeat it and the case had not progressed to a stage where the plaintiff would be put to irrevocable position if the defendants were allowed the opportunity to file the written statement.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiffs could not file their written statement within 90 days due to ill health after filing a suit for the declaration of right, title & interest, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction against the defendant. The trial court debarred the defendants from filing the written statement and request to allow the same was allowed by last indulgence and at the same time an application under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC was pressed for recall of the order by which the defendants were precluded from filing written statement.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that medical facilities were not easily accessible to the petitioners as they belonged to the ST community hailing from a remote village and thus the non-submission of a medical certificate shout not have weighed upon the trial court. It was further contended that grave prejudice would be caused if the petitioners were not allowed to file the written statement.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that the period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 and the proviso thereto read with Order 8 Rule 10 is not mandatory but discretionary and the rule in question being one of procedure was made to advance justice and not defeat it.
The court stated that in the present case, the plaintiff had themselves sought adjournment for the filing of documents and the case had not progressed to a stage where the plaintiff would be put to irrevocable position if the defendants were allowed the opportunity to file the written statement.
The court further stated that the learned trial court could have taken a broader view of the matter when there was no opposition from the defendants.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and imposed suitable costs for filing the written statement.
Case Title: Deb Manjuri Jamatia and anr. vs. Prem Sakhi Jamatia
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Case No.: CRP No.23 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. D.K Daschoudhary
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
