Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 44 (MEG)

Madhu Bajaj v. State Bank of India

2017-06-19

S.R.SEN

body2017
ORDER : S.R. Sen, J. Heard Mr. K. Paul, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "This is a revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned Order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (DRT in short), Guwahati in O.A. No. 34/2017 wherein the Learned Tribunal was pleased to direct closure of written statement and proceeding ex-parte against the Petitioner herein inspite of the fact that an application seeking deletion of names of the petitioners had been filed and pending before the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said Order dated 30.05.2017 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati in O.A. No. 34 of 2017, the Humble petitioners has approached this Hon'ble Court for redressal of her genuine grievances." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, though Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes 30(thirty) days' time to file the written statement, but the same is not mandatory. If for sufficient reasons the petitioner fails to file the written statement, time can be extended. As such, accepting the written statement beyond 30(thirty) days is purely discretionary. 4. The second point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to delete the petitioner's name from the array of the parties from the original petition pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (DRT in short), Guwahati in O.A. No. 34/2017, but unfortunately the Tribunal did not allow the petitioner to file the written statement beyond 30(thirty) days nor considered the petition for deleting the name from the original application. Hence, this instant petition. 5. After hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the provisions laid down at Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "1. Written statement. Hence, this instant petition. 5. After hearing the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the provisions laid down at Order 8, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "1. Written statement. The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record." 6. To support his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Smt. Rani Kusum v. Smt. Kanchan Devi and Ors., AIR 2005 SCC Page 3304 at Para 10 and 11 which are reproduced herein below for ready reference: 10. Order 8, Rule 1 after the amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order 8, Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted Order 8, Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried." 11. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice." 7. It is clearly understood that though, 30(thirty) days has been prescribed, but beyond 30(thirty) days also written statement can be filed, if the petitioner moved an application satisfying the Court or the Tribunal the reason why written statement could not be filed within 30(thirty) days. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the petitioner should be given a chance to file the written statement as there is no extraordinary delay. The Tribunal is directed to accept the written statement of the petitioner. However, before accepting the written statement, the Tribunal is further directed to hear the petition pertaining to deleting the name of the petitioner from the array of the parties from the original petition pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati in O.A. No. 34/2017. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.05.2017 passed in O.A. No. 34/2017 "SBI-versus-M/s R.N.B. Cements Pvt. Ltd & Ors" is hereby set aside. 8. With this observation and direction the instant petition is allowed and stands disposed of.