The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1101 of 2022 Gour Chandra Mandal Shree Prasad Mandal 1. 2. 3. Mithilesh Kumar Mandal 4. 5. Supriya Devi Nimay Chandra Mandal … … Petitioners/Plaintiffs V E R S U S 1. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. 2. The District Agriculture Officer, Collectorate Building, Bokaro 3. The Block Agricultural Officer, Block Office, Jaridih, Bokaro
Legal Reasoning
… … Respondents/ Defendants CORAM : HON'BLE DR JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, SC-I 03/12.05.2023 Heard Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned SC-I 2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 24.05.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 69 of 2017 whereby the Civil Judge, Senior Division-I, Bermo at Tenughat has accepted and admitted the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant no. 4 of O.S. No. 69 of 2017 on the same day despite being debarred from filing the same due to the reason of delay of almost two years and nine months without any explanation for such delay. Petitioner has further prayed for stay of entire proceedings before the lower court till disposal of the instant civil miscellaneous petition. 3. According to the petitioners, they are plaintiffs of the Original Suit No. 69 of 2017 which has been instituted for right and title over the Khata No. 88, Plot No. 1504, having an area of 2.55 Acres of land. Petitioners are the legal owner and were in peaceful possession of their ancestral heritage, the Khatiyani land measuring an area of about 2.55 acres bearing Khata No. 88, Plot No. 1504, situated at Mauza – Bandhdih, beside NH 23 of Bokaro district and was used by the petitioners for agricultural purposes until 10.02.2017 when the respondent no. 3 arrived at the spot and threatened them to stop cultivation over the said land or else the petitioners would be sent to jail citing the reason that the said land belongs to government. Thereafter, petitioners stopped cultivation over the land due to fear. Thereafter, a notice dated 27.02.2017 under Section 80 of C.P.C. was served through their lawyer to the present respondents and thereafter restarted cultivation over the said land. The respondent no. 3 along with his men came to RC/ 2 the spot and forcefully stopped ploughing over the land on 12.07.2017. Being aggrieved, petitioners took shelter of Civil Court and preferred Original Suit No. 69 of 2017, dated 18.07.2017 against the Block Agricultural Officer, District Agricultural Officer and Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. Notices were issued to the defendants and the matter was put up on appearance and the defendants were asked to file written statement vide order dated 04.12.2017. Pursuant to order dated 01.02.2018, the defendants were directed to file their respective written statement within 30 days. After ten consecutive dates, the respondent no. 3 was finally debarred from filing written statement vide order dated 04.07.2018 passed in O.S. No. 69 of 2017 and the matter was kept to be heard under Section 89 C.P.C.. Thereafter, the matter was sent to Mediation Centre vide order dated 07.08.2018 passed in O.S. No. 69 of 2017. However, on the submission of counsel for the defendants vide order dated 21.12.2018, the case was fixed for hearing under Sections 8 and 10 of the C.P.C. and the petitioners were directed to produce the witnesses. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, only four witnesses could be examined on behalf of the petitioners till 04.09.2021. Subsequently, on 06.09.2021, the respondent no. 3 filed his written statement which was kept with record and the matter was further fixed for next date. On 16.11.2021, the counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Court below that since all the respondents have been debarred from filing their written statement, hence the evidence of the defendants may be closed and the case may be posted for final hearing. However, the plaintiffs were directed to file reply against the petition for acceptance of written statement filed by the respondents along with petition under section 151 C.P.C. for condonation of delay. Thereafter, rejoinder was filed on behalf of the petitioners and the matter was put upon 24.05.2022 for order against the petition dated 13.04.2021 filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. However, the Court below admitted the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 even though the said respondent was already debarred from filing any written statement vide order dated 04.07.2018. Being aggrieved by acceptance of written statement filed on behalf of the State after delay of two years and nine months, petitioners have knocked door of this Court. 4. Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that allowing the filing of written statement without revoking the order dated 04.07.2018 wherein respondents were debarred from filing the written statement is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that filing of written statement after lapse of almost four years without any rhyme or reason amounts to abuse of process of law and as such the same is not tenable in the eyes of law. RC/ 3 Learned counsel further argues that the Code of Civil Procedure clearly mentions the time frame for filing the written statement and in the event of reasonable delay only, the same can be condoned. Learned counsel submits that no reason has been assigned for accepting written statement by condoning delay and for recalling earlier order by which defendant was debarred from filing written statement. Learned counsel places reliance upon the Judgment passed in the case of R.N. Jadi & Brothers & Others Vs. Subhashchandra reported in (2007) 6 SCC 420 and further in the case of Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 732. Learned counsel submits that action of the respondents is in violation of the principles of limitation by misusing the law and as such appropriate order may be passed quashing the order dated 24.05.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 69 of 2017. 5. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, leaned SC-I appearing on behalf of the State opposing contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that delay had occasioned on the specific ground due to Covid-19 and difficulty in tracing of some of the documents in order to properly file the written statement. The reason was considered by the Court below although this has not been specifically mentioned in the order. 6. It is settled proposition of law that mandate of Order 8 Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory in nature and delay can be condoned for reasonable ground. The principles have laid down at length in the case of R.N. Jadi & Brothers & Others Vs. Subhashchandra (Supra) wherein it has been held as under: “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 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 the 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 20. language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of RC/ 4 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 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. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order accepting the written statement of the defendants. State entered into appearance after the year 2018 and thereafter the disruption caused due to Covid-19 pandemic is no secret. State represents the collective and it will not be in the interest of justice to debar the State from filing the written statement which is not going to cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. Considering the submissions on behalf of both the parties and the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I do not deem it proper to interfere in the impugned order. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merits in this application. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/