- (1.) THE instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against Order No.9 dated 19th June, 2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Basirhat in Money Suit No.18 of 2008 refusing to accept the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties concerned and also after going through the materials-on-record, it could be detected that the opposite party by instituting the said Money Suit No.18 of 2008 against the present petitioner prayed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,88,526.56/- with interest.
(2.) IN the said suit, the petitioner/defendant entered appearance and also filed written statement which was ultimately not accepted by the learned Court below by passing the impugned order. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 19th June, 2009, the present petitioner/defendant has come up before this Court praying for setting aside the said order and also for acceptance of the written statement already filed from his end. Mr. Nag, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while making submission has drawn this Court"s attention to the contents of the Order No.5 dated 3.3.2009, Order No.6 dated 27.3.2009 as also two other orders, namely, Order Nos.7 and 8 dated 27.4.2009 and 25.5.2009 respectively and contends that the learned Court below despite acceptance of the written statement already submitted on behalf of his client ultimately by passing the impugned order declined to accept the said written statement for want of Court"s jurisdiction and also for the reasons that the petitioner/defendant did not file the said written statement with the proper explanation for non-submission of the same in time as per provision laid down in Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) IT is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the Court below once accepted the written statement, it cannot be said to have not been accepted by the said Court and accordingly the order impugned dated 19.6.2009 would not be sustainable in the eye and estimation of law and the same would be liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party/plaintiff while making submission refers to the contents of the Order Nos.6,7,8 and 9 dated 27.3.2009, 27.4.2009, 25.5.2009 as also 19.6.2009 and emphatically urges that the defendant/petitioner filed the written statement without explaining any reason concerning the delay as envisaged in Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, as such, the same cannot be said to be acceptable under the law and, accordingly, the order impugned passed by the learned Court below could be said to be quite justifiable and the same needs no interference by any Court of Law.;