VIVEK CHAUDHARY,J. - (1.) Present revision is filed by the plaintiff revisionist challenging the order dated 8.9.2017 whereby his application under Order 8, Rule 10 of CPC for rejecting the written statement, as the same was filed beyond the period of 90 days, is rejected and the written statement, of defendant is taken on record with cost of Rs. 5000/-.
(2.) The dispute in this case is between the family members and the plaintiff has challenged the Will of his father. Plaintiff filed two suits: the first being Regular Suit No. 1364 of 2012 (Dr. Sushil Suri v. Harish Suri and others ) for injunction restraining defendants from alienating the property in suit. The present proceeding arises out of the Second Suit, bearing Regular Suit No. 342 of 2015 (Dr. Sushil Suri v. Harish Suri and others ), which is for injunction and partition. The dispute between the parties, belonging to same family is regarding a Will left by the deceased father whereby property first goes in favour of his wife and thereafter in favour of the eldest son.
(3.) The submission of learned counsel for revisionist is that Order 8, Rule 10 CPC provides a period of 90 days for filing written statement and written statement filed beyond the said period ought not to have been accepted. He submits that delay is wrongly condoned in this case.;