- (1.) The present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by learned Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 57 of 2005 dated 4th December 2008, whereby, the written statement filed by the present petitioner is not accepted by the trial court and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred.
(2.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that:- (i) The present respondent is the original plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 57 of 2005 and the present petitioner is the original defendant. (ii) It appears that initially some order was passed on 13th April, 2006 and the whole suit was decided ex-parte. Against that order, an application was preferred by the present petitioner (original defendant). (iii) Upon application of the petitioner (original defendant), order dated 13th April, 2006 was recalled on 3rd January, 2008 with cost. The amount of cost was already deposited by the present petitioner (original defendant) before the concerned trial court. (iv) Thereafter, time to file written statement was given upto 10th April, 2008 and the written statement was actually filed by the petitioner before the trial court on 7th April, 2008, which was not accepted by the trial court and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred. (v) It also appears that initially the order was passed on 3rd January, 2008 with cost and time to file written statement was extended to 10th April, 2008 and actually the written statement was filed on 7th April, 2008. Even otherwise also, without written statement, it is not possible for the trial court to decide the issue accurately and judiciously between the parties and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the written statement filed by the present petitioner (original defendant) ought to have been accepted by the trial court. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not mandatory in nature. Looking to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v Nanhku as reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480, it also appears that the written statement filed by the petitioner (original defendant) ought to have been accepted by the trial court.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by learned Munsif, Palamau at Daltonganj in Title Suit No. 57 of 2005 dated 4th December, 2008, which is at Annexure-4 to the memo of petition. The written statement filed by the petitioner (original defendant) is, hereby, ordered to be taken on record of the Title Suit No. 57 of 2005 and the Title Suit No. 57 of 2005 will be decided as expeditiously as possible and practicable, in accordance with law.;