Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1057 (CAL)

Manas Kr. Misra v. Sk. Moiuddin Ali

2012-12-20

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. 1. Heard the learned Advocates of both the sides over the two applications. Since a common question of law has arisen in respect of the two matters, the two applications are taken up for hearing together and they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The question of filing a written statement as per provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC is the subject-matter of the two applications. 3. The plaintiffs/petitioners instituted the two suits being O.S. No. 21 of 2011 and O.S. No. 22 of 2011 for ejectment and recovery of possession on the ground of default, reasonable requirement, etc. The respective defendants/opposite parties filed applications under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and both the parties to the suit were proceedings with that matter in the respective cases. After the disposal of the matter under section 7(2) of the 1997 Act, the respective defendants filed their written statements in the suit, but, by that time, 90 days had already expired and in fact, the written statements filed by the respective defendants were late by 7 months from the dates of their appearance in the respective suits. The learned Trial Judge accepted the written statements filed by the respective parties upon payment of costs. 4. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs/petitioners herein filed applications under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC for not accepting the written statements and those applications were rejected by the impugned orders. 5. Being aggrieved, these two applications have been filed by the plaintiffs/landlords. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials-on-record, I find that in O.S. No. 21 of 2011, the defendant received summons on March 25, 2011 and he filed the written statement only on December 7, 2011, i.e., about after 7 months from the date of service of summons. 7. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials-on-record, I find that in O.S. No. 21 of 2011, the defendant received summons on March 25, 2011 and he filed the written statement only on December 7, 2011, i.e., about after 7 months from the date of service of summons. 7. As per provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC, the defendant is required to file a written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him, but, on adequate reason shown by the defendant, he could be permitted to file a written statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons and if he is unable to file the written statement within the aforesaid time, he has to prove the exceptional circumstances for which he could not file the written statement. The learned Trial Judge has recorded it elaborately in the impugned order. 8. In O.S. No. 21 of 2011, the defendant has taken the plea that on receiving summons, he entered an appearance in the suit and filed an application under section 7(2) of the 1997 Act and he was proceeding with the matter. Moreover, he was ignorant of the law to file a written statement within the specified time and as such, there was delay of about 4 months beyond the period of 90 days. Delay is not of for a long period, but, 7 months only from the date of service of summons and parties are proceedings with the suit over the same two matters. From the aforesaid conduct, it appears that the defendant was proceeding with the suit in a bona fide manner relying solely upon his lawyer and his lawyer did not instruct him to file the written statement within the stipulated period as provided under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC. 9. In any way, by the impugned order, I find that the learned Trial Judge has recorded that, under the aforesaid circumstances, the written statement filed by the defendant should be accepted upon payment of costs. As submitted costs of Rs. 200/- were awarded and such costs were accepted by the plaintiffs. 10. 9. In any way, by the impugned order, I find that the learned Trial Judge has recorded that, under the aforesaid circumstances, the written statement filed by the defendant should be accepted upon payment of costs. As submitted costs of Rs. 200/- were awarded and such costs were accepted by the plaintiffs. 10. This being the position, in view of the decisions of the Apex Court and also of this Court, such as (SC) 2008(3) CHN 26, 2012(2) CLJ (SC) 185 and 2010(2) CHN (CAL) 809, I am of the opinion that the time limit for filing a written statement as per provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC being directory and not mandatory, the impugned order rejecting the application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs should not be interfered with. 11. The application being C.O. No. 899 of 2012 is, therefore, dismissed. 12. On the self-same reasoning, the C.O. No. 900 of 2012 is also liable to be dismissed. So, this application is dismissed. 13. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners upon compliance of necessary formalities. Application dismissed