- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order, passed by the learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat dated 24th September, 2010 in Title Suit No. 12 of 2010 whereby, the written statement filed by the present petitioners, who are original defendants, has not been accepted mainly on the ground of delay of 11 days.
(2.) HAVING heard counsel for the petitioners and looking to the facts and cir -cumstances of the case, it appears that the respondents are the original plaintiffs, who have instituted Title Suit No. 12 of 2010. The present petitioners are original defendants. It further appears that notices were served upon the original defendants on 21st May, 2010. On 29th May, 2010, appearances were filed by the original defendants in Title Suit No. 12 of 2010. It further appears from the facts of the case that the original defendants were waiting for getting certified copy of some sale deeds etc., which were presented in another suit which took some times in filing of the written statement and thus, in view of this reason, the delay of 11 days occurred in filing of the written statement.
(3.) THE provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not mandatory in nature as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India as reported in (2005)6 SCC 344 [ : 2005(4) JLJR (SC) 169].;