- (1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 7th August, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Additional Court at Alipore, in Title Suit No. 78 of 2007 by which the defendant's prayer for acceptance of the written statement which was filed beyond the prescribed time, was rejected by the learned Trial Judge. Hence, the defendant has filed the instant application before this Court.
(2.) Heard Mr. Acharya, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bikash Kumar Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate, appearing for the opposite party. Considered the materials on record, including the order impugned. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case. It has now been settled by several judicial pronouncements by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Hon'ble Court that the time-limit which is prescribed for filing written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is not mandatory. As such, the Court in suitable circumstances may extend the time-limit for filing the written statement even beyond the time prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
(3.) Here is the case, where this Court finds that the defendant appeared in the said suit on 22nd August, 2005, but he filed written statement on 12th June, 2007 without taking any extension of time for filing such written statement. The defendant stated in his application that he is a heart-patient and was under constant medical treatment from 2005-2006. It was, further stated by him that he had to be admitted in hospital for his treatment and remained in the hospital from 17th April, 2005 to 28th April, 2005. The defendant stated that he could not keep regular contact with his lawyer for giving proper instruction to him for filing written statement within the prescribed time and as such there was some delay in filing the written statement in the said suit. The explanation which was given by the defendant/petitioner in his said application was not accepted by the learned Trial Judge as the learned Trial Judge was of the view that the said explanation was not convincing. Accordingly, the defendant's prayer for acceptance of his written statement was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.;