R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.3.20 , passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby an application filed by the petitioner, under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, has been rejected and the learned Judge has refused to take on record the written statement filed by the petitioner.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was impleaded in the civil suit later on and when he received a copy of the plaint, certain pages were missing. Therefore, he was given a copy of those pages subsequently on 31.7.2006. He filed his written statement on 11.9.2006 and prayed to the court that his written statement be taken on record. However, by order dated 9.3.20 , the learned Judge has refused to take the written statement on record, and has dismissed the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC.
(3.) Mr. Manoj Pareek, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the requirement of law that the written statement has to be submitted within the thirty days of the receipt of the summons, is merely directory and not mandatory in nature. In order to fortify this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Sambhaji & Ors. v. Gangabai & Ors. [2009(1) Civil Court Cases 356 (S.C.) ], and on the case of Smt. Saraswati Devi & Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar @ Ghewar Chand & Ors. [2009(1) Civil Court Cases 361 (Rajasthan) ]. Therefore, according to the counsel, the position taken by the learned Judge that since the written statement is being submitted after the lapse of thirty days, the same cannot be taken on record, is misplaced position.;