NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) THE petitioners, in this writ application, have prayed for quashing the order dated 26.7.2005, by which the learned court below while rejecting the petitioners application for time has debarred them to file written statement on the ground of expiry of prescribed period provided under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the expiry of the prescribed period under Order VIII Rule 1 cannot itself be a ground for debarring the petitioners from filing written statement, as the said provision has been held to be directory by the Supreme Court in the case of Rani Kusum (Smt.) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) and Ors. ), it has been submitted that the same view has taken by the Supreme Court in earlier decision in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. . Relying on said decisions of the Supreme Court, learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contended that though there is no denial that the court has power to extend the period for filing the written statement as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. yet one has to make out a good ground for acceptance of written statement after the period prescribed by Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C Learned Counsel relied on a decision in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India 2005 (4) JLJR 169, in support of his submissions. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the order extending time to file Written Statement cannot be made in routine manner and time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the submissions as also the materials appearing on record, I find that the court below has not rejected the petitioners application for extension of time on the ground that he has not made any appropriate ground for extension, rather the learned court below has rejected the application on the ground that the written statement has not been filed within time as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. though, the court, in appropriate cases, can extend time and accept written statement even beyond the period prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. The decision of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu (supra) has got no application to the facts of the instant case. The learned court below has erroneously rejected the petitioners application and debarred them from filing the written statement against the settled principle of law. The impugned order is thus not sustainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rani Kusum (Smt.) (supra) and is, hereby, quashed.;