- (1.) THE present petitioners by way of filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for quashing the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Munsif, Latehar in Titile Suit No. 7 of 2006 contained in Annexure-1 whereby the defendants no. 2 to 6 have been debarred from filing their written statement in the said suit.The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order dated 21.6.2007 passed by the learned Munsif Lathehar (Annexure-4) by which the learned court below refused to accept the written statement filed by the respondents no. 2 to 6 rejecting their petition to recall the order dated 22.11.2006. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondents. Perused the materials produced on record.
(2.) IT appears that Title suit no. 7 of 2006 was instituted by the respondents no. 1 to 6 on 17.3.2006 and summons were ordered to be served upon the defendants no. 2 to 6 on 30th July, 2006. Defendants- petitioners filed their appearance in response to summons on 31st July, 2006 whereas defendants no. 5 and 6 filed their appearance in response to summons on 30st August, 2006.The petitioners-defendants were required to file their written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of the summons and maximum permissible time limit is 90 days for the purpose of filing of written statement. But it appears that the petitioners- defendants could not file their written statement within permissible time limits that is why the court below debarred the petitioners-defendants from filing their written statement by its order dated 22.11.2006. Thereafter, the petitioners-defendants moved an application before the court below with request to recall the said order and in para 3 of the said application reasons were also stated which shows that since the petitioners- defendants were not having certain relevant documents relating to the suit land, they could not file written statement within stipulated time. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants in support of his case has also referred to and relied upon the provision as contained in order 8 rule 1 CPC and submitted that there is no mandatory provision prescribed in the CPC whereby the petitioners-defendants can be prevented from submitting their written statement and the court below is not power less to grant such permission on account of lapse committed by the petitioners-defendants in filing the written statement within stipulated time. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has also referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors reported in 2005(4)SCC 480.
(3.) AS against that, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents while justifying the order passed by the court below submitted that despite sufficient opportunities are available to the petitioners-defendants, they failed to submit their written statement within stipulated time and there is delay of about 45 days in filing the written statement. It is further submitted that the court below has not committed any error while passing the impugned order and therefore, writ petition may be rejected. Considering the above submissions and more particularly, the reasons stated in paragraph 3 of the application filed by the petitioners- defendants before the court below to recall its order dated 22.11.2006. It appears that there was reasonable justification submitted by the present petitioners-defendants .;