Shri. Jogesh B. Sangma (Male Nokma), & Anr. vs State of Meghalaya represented by its Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering

Heard Mr. R. Majaw, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned State counsel.

The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:

The factual matrix of the case is the revision petitioners has instituted a Title Suit No. 3/2012 dated 28th March, 2012 before the

Learned Munsiff/Assistant to The Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya for declaration of rights and title

over the following disputed suit land situated at Kusimkolgre, Williamnagar. Accordingly the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 07-06-

2012 issued summon / notice upon the respondent to answer / written statement against the claim on 30-08-2012 meaning thereby 2

months and 23 days were given to the respondent. The respondent through its lawyer appeared on the said fixed date i.e. 30-08-

2012, however, the written statement was not filed. Therefore, the Ld. Trial court vides its order dated 30-08-2012 re-fix the matter

again on 30-11-2012 to enable the respondent to file its written statement, meaning thereby another 3 months times was granted to

the respondent. On the date fixed i.e. 30-11-2012 the respondent appeared and later on claimed that the written statement sign 05-

11-2012 was submitted to the bench assistant of the Ld. Trial court on 30-11-2012. The filing of the written statement vehemently

objected by the revision petitioners through petition dated 30-08-2013 and in response thereto the respondent has also filed an

objection in the year 2013 against the above petition filed by the Revision Petitioners by contending that the written statement

submitted to the Ld. Trial court on 30-11-2012 should be accepted. After hearing both the parties, the Ld. Trial court vide the

impugned order dated 09-06-2016 came to the finding that the written statement filed by the respondent beyond the period of 90

days is permissible under OR VIII R 1 of the CPC, 1908 and accordingly rejected the petition dated 30-08-2013 filed by the

Revision Petitioner and taken the written statement on record by totally ignoring the settled position of law that the respondent cannot

be permitted to filed its written statement beyond the period of 90 days as provided under OR VIII R 1 of CPC read with the

decision pronounced by the Hon''ble Apex Court Judgment and Order dated 04-12-2015 in the case of New India Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Ltd. Therefore, the humble petitioners pray that this Hon''ble Court may

be kind enough to intervene into the matter for necessary reliefs as prayed for the ends of justice, fairness and equity as Your

Lordship may be deemed fit and proper.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent failed to file the written statement in time as required under Order VIII, Rule

1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the same was objected by the petitioners and the learned trial Court also rejected the objection. Hence, this

instant petition.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that though, Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure emphasize to file the

written statement within 30(thirty) days, but the same is not mandatory, it is totally to the discretion of the Court. So, there is nothing wrong in the

impugned order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the learned trial Court of Munsiff and Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Williamnagar, East

Garo Hills, Meghalaya.

After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that though, emphasized has been

made in the statute that written statement to be filed within 30(thirty) days, but the same can be allowed and accepted within 120 (one hundred

twenty) days from the date of service of summons. The Court should be satisfied that, if for sufficient reasons, the respondents failed to file the

written statement within 30(thirty) days, time can be extended as the same is not mandatory. As such, accepting the written statement beyond

30(thirty) days is purely discretionary. Therefore, it is not correct that beyond 30(thirty) days'' written statement cannot be accepted. For ready

reference Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced herein below:

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.

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 was

pleased to observe that:

Order VIII, 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 VIII, Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the

substantive law. Substituted Order VIII, 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. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried.

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.

After perusal of the Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the judgment quoted above, I am of the view that the primary

duty of the Court is to render substantial justice and not to shut the door on mere technicalities. Therefore, I do not find any scope or reason to

interfere with the impugned order dated 09.06.2016 passed by the learned trial Court of Munsiff and Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner,

Williamnagar, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya.

The Registry is directed to return back the Lower Court case record to the concerned Court.

With this observation and direction the instant petition is dismissed and stands disposed of.