AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.Y. Eqbal, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of respondents although Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the respondents by one Mr. Sunil Kumar, advocate.
By the impugned order, the Court below debarred the defendants-petitioners from filing written statement because of the fact that written statement was filed after expiry of the period fixed under Order 8, Rule 1, CPC.
The petitioners appeared in the suit on 13.1.2004 and filed written statement on 15.4.2004 and an application was also filed for recall of the order by which they were debarred from filing written statement.
Considering the entire facts of the case and recent decision of Supreme Court reported in Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, , I am of the view that serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners if the written statement filed by them is not accepted. In view of this fact, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set- aside. It is directed that the written statement filed by the petitioners shall be accepted.