I.P. Mukerji, J - (1.) The Court: Mr. Dasgupta opposes this application made by the first defendant No.1 for a week's extension to file their written statement. Time to file their written statement expired on 5th August 2016.
(2.) The Master's Summons was signed by the Master on 12th August, 2016. The petition in support of it was verified on 10th August, 2016.
(3.) I was referred by Mr. Dasgupta to a three Judges' Bench decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 86. After consideration of a number of judgements pronounced by the Court, it was pleased to observe and hold as follows in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 16 and 18 of the judgement:- 4. The question arose in the case of Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, (AIR 2002 SC 2931 : 2002 AIR SCW 3424) (supra) whether the Forum can grant time beyond 45 days to the opposite party for filing its version. After considering the afore stated section in the light of the object with which the Act has been enacted, the three-Judge Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that in no case period beyond 45 days can be granted to the opposite party for filing its version of the case. 5. Without discussing the afore stated three-Judge Bench Judgment in detail, we now turn to another judgment which has been referred to by the referring Bench. The other judgment which has been referred to is Kailash v. Nanhku Ors.(AIR 2005 SC 2441 : 2005 AIR SCW 2346) (supra), which pertains to Election Law. The issue involved in the said case was whether time limit of 90 days, as prescribed by the proviso to Rule 1ORDER8 of the Civil Procedure Code, is mandatory or directory in nature. The said issue had arisen in an election matter where the written statement was not filed by the concerned candidate within the period prescribed under the relevant Election Law and the issue was whether in the Election trial, delay caused in filing the written statement could have been condoned. 6. After considering the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and several other judgments pertaining to grant of time or additional time for filing written statement or reply, in the interest of justice, this Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 C.P.C. are not mandatory but directory in nature and therefore, in the interest of justice, further time for filing reply can be granted, if the circumstances are such that require grant of further time for filing the reply. 16. In the case of Dr. J. J. Merchant (supra), which is on the same subject, this Court observed as under: 13. The National Commission or the State Commission is empowered to follow the said procedure. From the aforesaid section it is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the Commission. For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to adhered to. If this is not adhered to, the legislative mandate if disposing of the cases within three or five months would be defeated. 14. For this purpose, even Parliament has amended Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus: 1. Written Statement. - The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. 18. There is one more reason to follow the law laid down in the case of Dr. J.J.Merchant (AIR 2002 SC 2931 : 2002 AIR SCW 3424) (supra). Dr. J.J.Merchant (supra) was decided in 2002, whereas Kailash (AIR 2005 SC 2441 : 2005 AIR SCW 2346) (supra) was decided in 2005. As per law laid down by this Court, while deciding the case of Kailash (supra), this Court ought to have respected the view expressed in Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) as the judgement delivered in the case of Dr. J.J.Merchant (supra) was earlier in point of time. The afore stated legal position cannot be ignored by us and therefore, we are of the opinion that the view expressed in Dr. J.J.Merchant (supra) should be followed. ;