AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri B. Dayal has appeared for respondent no. 1. Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3.
Petitioners have instituted a suit against the respondents. In the said suit only respondents no. 2 and 3 filed their written statement. Subsequently, respondent no. 1 moved application that the written statement filed by respondents no. 2 and 3 be treated as a written statement on its behalf also. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the trial court and the revision against the same has been dismissed.
In the suit the relief claimed may be against respondent no. 1 but if the said respondent is not willing to file a separate written statement and wants to depend upon the written statement of respondents no. 2 and 3, no exception to it can be taken.
The acceptance of the request of respondent no. 1 to treat the written statement of respondents no. 2 and 3 to be the written statement on its part also though made after the expiry of the period provided under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC can not be held to be illegal, in as much as, the time period provided therein for filing the written statement is to avoid delay and discretionary in nature which does not absolutely oust the jurisdiction of the court to take on record the written statement even if filed after the expiry of the period.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the order impugned does not affect the rights of the petitioners or results in miscarriage of justice, I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed.