SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.) RULE 1 of Order 8 CPC, as it stood before the amendment in 1976 gave the defendant discretion to file a written statement unless the court required him to do so, and he could exercise that discretion at any time before the first hearing or upto some date fixed by the court. By the Amending Act of 1976 original rule 1 has been renumbered as sub-rule (1) and words "may, and if so required by the court" have been omitted. The amendment has been effected to make the filing of written statement obligatory. The rule now provides that the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the court may permit, file a written statement.
(2.) THE short question which arises for determination in this revision is as to whether sub-rule (1) of order 8 intended to be so operated as to punish the defaulting defendant for his omission or it has to be worked in manner so as to advance justice? The question has emerged in the following circumstances - (i) Summons of the eviction suit instituted by non-petitioner landlord Chandra Prakash, was served upon the petitioner-tenant on August 23, 1995, and despite many opportunities granted to him, he did not file the written statement. Thereafter the non-petitioner landlord moved an application on April 6, 1996 for closing the written statement of the petitioner-tenant. (ii) The trial court vide order dated July 24, 1996 allowed the application of the landlord and closed the written statement of the petitioner-tenant. (iii) Against the said order, present action for filing the revision has been resorted to.
(3.) ORDER impugned, was supported by the learned counsel for the landlord placing reliance on Ganpat Chand v. Jeth Mal, RLR 1983 143 in which this court observed that if after several opportunities the defendant did not file written statement, the trial court rightly proceeded under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.;