D.S.Sinha - (1.) A. N. Bhargava, R. C. Shukla. for Petitioner. V. C. Srivastava for Respondents. Gopal Lal Sijuwar. the petitioner, who figures as defendant in Original Suit No. 278 of 1984 (Munsif West Sampat Lal and others v. Gopal Babu, seeks to challenge the order and judgment of the TV Addl District Judge. Allahabad dated 20th April, 1985, passed in Civil Revision No 439 of 1984, purporting to confirm the decree and judgment dated 28th September, 1984, passed by the XIII Addl. Munsif, Allahabad.
(2.) IN paragraph 10 of his written statement filed in the trial court, the petitioner stated that he had no objection to the suit of the plaintiffs, respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 before this: Court. On this admission, the learned Munsif pronounced the judgment and decreed the suit on 28th September, 1984 which it appears, was the first date of hearing in the suit. The factum of delivery of Judgment was also recorded in the order-sheet of the suit. In the order-sheet the provisions under which the judgment was delivered is quoted as Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, hereinafter called the Code. The decree and the judgment passed by the learned Munsif was sought to be challenged in the revision wherein the learned IV Addl. District Judge passed the impugned (order dated 20th April, 1985 dismissing the revision and confirming the order of the learned Munsif.
(3.) BEFORE the learned Addl. District Judge It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Munsif acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally and with material irrgularity in decreeing the suit under Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code in as much as the said provision was not attracted on the facts and circumstances of the case. The contention of the petitioner that the provisions of rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code were not attracted is correct. Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code provides that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the court shall pronounce the judgment against him or make such order in-relation to the suit as it thinks; fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up. Indisputably, in the instant case, there was no failure on the part of the petitioner to file a written statement Failure to file a written statement is a condition-precedent for the application of the provisions of Rule 10 of Order VIII of the Code.;