ARCHANA GUPTA Vs. SHEO SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA
LAWS(JHAR)-2004-9-89
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on September 22,2004

ARCHANA GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
Sheo Shankar Srivastava Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional Munsif, III, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 64/2003, whereby he has accepted the written statement of the respondents awarding cost of Rs. 100/ -.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the service of summons on the defendants on 22.5.2003 through the process of the Court and on 2.6.2003 by registered post, the defendants for the first time appeared on 11.8.2003 and filed their written statement on the same day which has been erroneously accepted by the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court has no power to grant such time as the defendants had not appeared earlier and prayed for time. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and, perused the order of the Court below, I find that the Court below has considered the cause shown in the petition and has accepted the written statement. The Court below has recorded its reason that even from the date of service of notice the written statement has been filed within the period of 90 days and there was sufficient reason for the delay and has accepted the same on considering the reason with cost of Rs. 100/ -, Order 8 Rule I provides that the defendant shall present a written statement within 30 days, but proviso has been added to the said provision envisaging that if the defendant fails to file written statement within the said period of 30 days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than 90 days from the date of service of summons. In this case the defendant has been allowed to present his written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons and the Court below has recorded the reason for the same. 1 find no error or illegality in the impugned order warranting any intervention in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THIS application is accordingly, dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.