IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3155 of 2015 ------ Shri Dwarkadas Jalan Memorial Public Charity Trust, a Public Trust having its office at Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.- Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad represented by its Managing Trustee- Bajrang Prasad Dalmia, Advocate, son of Late K.N. Dalmia, resident of Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad ... ... … Petitioner Versus 1. Ramesh Kumar Jalan, son of Late Radhe Krishna Jalan, resident of Flat No.501, Skylark-‘B’, 5th Floor, Lokhandwala, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400 053 2. Bijay Kumar Jalan, son of late Radha Krishna Jalan, resident of Mumbai Sadguru Complex, 1-A-304, Gen. A.K. Vidya Marg, Film City Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400 063 3. Sajan Kumar Tulsyan 4. Ajay Kumar Tulsyan Nos.3 and 4, both sons of Late Om Prakash Tulsyan, residents of Rajbari Road, Jharia, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District- Dhanbad ... ... ... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI NATH VERMA For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. R.S. Majumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate ------ Dated, 1 September, 2016 st By Court The plaintiff has questioned the legality of the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-VIII, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.20 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the order dated 21.11.2014 by which the defendants-respondents no.2 and 3 were debarred from filing written statement has been recalled and the written statement of those two defendants have been accepted.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, which is relevant for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties, in short, is that at the instance of the plaintiff title suit bearing no.20 of 2014 was filed for declaration of his title and confirmation of possession over schedule A land and also for declaration that sale 2 W.P.(C) No.3155 of 2015 deed dated 10.04.2013 is void, illegal, collusive, fraudulent, shame and has not conferred any title in respect of and any possession over schedule B upon the defendants second set and for permanent injunction. Upon notice, the defendant nos.1 and 2 appeared in court on 05.01.2014 and prayed for time for filing written statement. Whereafter the case was fixed for 06.09.2014 but as no written statement was filed, the case was again fixed for 21.11.2014 for filing written statement. On 21.11.2014, defendant nos.1 and 2 again filed time petition to file written statement but the same was rejected by the court and the defendant nos.1 and 2 were debarred from filing written statement. The case was fixed for 05.01.2015. On 05.01.2015, defendant nos.1 and 2 filed written statement with the petition to recall the order dated 21.11.2014 by which they were debarred and accept the written statement. The plaintiff filed rejoinder to the above petition and by impugned order dated 20.03.2015 after recalling earlier order dated 21.11.2014 by which the defendant nos.1 and 2 were debarred, the court accepted the written statement on payment of cost of Rs.3000/- to the plaintiff. The defendants deposited the said amount but being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed this writ application.
3. Learned counsel, Mr. Sahani appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as bad in law, seriously contended that the court below erred in accepting the written statement after recalling the order of debar though there was no satisfactory reason for invoking the discretionary power of this court. It was also contended that the period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) is 90 days for filing written statement and though the court has every jurisdiction to enlarge the said statutory period but on showing sufficient reason for delay. However in the instant case, no plausible explanation has been given for recall of the order dated 21.11.2014 and accepting the written statement, as such the order impugned is fit to be quashed. 3 W.P.(C) No.3155 of 2015 4. Per contra, learned senior counsel Mr. Majumdar appearing for the defendant-respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that a petition with proper explanation was filed in the court below for recall of the earlier order by which respondent nos.1 and 2 were debarred and for acceptance of the written statement and considering the good cause shown for the delay, the order impugned was passed. It was also submitted that the petitioner has enclosed the petition filed at the instance of the respondent nos.1 and 2 with this writ application and on perusal of the same it would appear that a good cause was shown by the respondents and in fact they had engaged one senior lawyer of Dhanbad bar to file written statement but the said senior counsel fell ill and was treated at Kolkata and subsequently died on 13.12.2014 and these two respondents were residing at Mumbai and had they handed over everything to the said senior counsel and after hearing the news of death of the said senior counsel they came to Dhanbad and engaged another senior advocate and only thereafter written statement was prepared and filed in court.
5. After hearing the parties and going through the record of the case and the petition filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 in court below, I find that the delay in filing the written statement was properly explained before the court concerned and the court below by order impugned appreciating the cause rightly recalled the earlier order dated 21.11.2014 and accepted the written statement. The provision for filing written statement has its root in the principles of natural. The legislature with a view to curb the common practice of taking long adjournment and to avoid unnecessary delay has provided the statutory period for filing written statement but it was never the intention of the legislature to deprive a party from bringing his pleading on record. Our laws of procedure are grounded on the principle of nature justice which requires that the party should not be condemned unheard and that decisions should not be reached behind the backs. The Hon’ble 4 W.P.(C) No.3155 of 2015 Supreme Court has laid down the ratio that though the written statement has to be filed within the statutory period of 90 days and thereafter another 30 days period will be allowed for filing the same, but it is not mandatory rather it is directory in nature and the court has every discretion to extend that period for filing written statement if a good and reasonable explanation or cause has been shown by the party.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and no plausible ground has been shown to interfere in the order impugned in exercising the supervisory power of this Court.
7. Accordingly, this writ application, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed. (R.N. Verma, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 1st September, 2016 Anit/N.A.F.R.