D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for setting side the order dated 8.12.2003 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge I, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 60 of 2002 whereby the petitioner's prayer for allowing time to file written statement was disallowed and the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement. Further, prayer has also been made for setting aside order dated 11.3.2004 whereby the Court below had refused to accept petitioner's written statement field on 15.1.2004 in the said suit and had refused to allow her to defend in the suit. Learned Counsel explains that though the petitioner was allowed seven adjournments for filing written statement soon after her appearance in the suit, but the delay was occasioned on account of the fact that she had needed all documents for preparing her written statement and it was only after obtaining the documents she could hand over the same to her counsel, but on account of failure of her lawyer to attend the Court on the date fixed and to press the application filed by him for adjournment, the impugned order as passed on 8.12.2003. The petitioner had later filed her written statement on 14.1.2004. The learned Counsel further explains that the suit was filed prior to the amendment introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure and as such the rigours imposed in the amended provision for filing the written statement within maximum period of ninety days was not there at the relevant time and considering this aspect of the matter, the Court below ought to have accepted the written statement filed by the petitioner and allowed her to contest the suit.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent emphatically opposes the petitioner's claim. Learned Counsel would argue that from the order sheet of the Court below, it transpires that the petitioner field her appearance on 2.12.2000 and thereafter for about 13 months, she was taking adjournments, one after another, and each time she was allowed the benefit of adjournment by the Court below. The impugned order of the Court below dated 8.12.2003 as also the subsequent order impugned dated 11.3.2004 would indicate that the petitioner had no genuine ground for acceptance of her written statement.;