Madan Lal Vs. Hari Prasad and Ors. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4130/10) 1 Madan Lal Vs. Hari Prasad and ors. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4130/10) Dated:- 26.4.10. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. J.K.Bhaiya, for the petitioner. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 23.3.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Sujangarh, in Civil Original Suit No. 76/08 (13/06) whereby the written statement filed on behalf of respondents/defendants belatedly, has been taken on record. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that without there being sufficient and justifiable cause, the learned trial court has seriously erred in taking the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents/defendants belatedly, on record. Learned counsel submitted that it is apparent on the face of the record that the respondents/defendants did not file the written statement within the stipulated period intentionally so as to delay the proceedings of the suit. Learned counsel submitted that the service of the summons was effected on the respondents/ defendants on 8.2.2006 and thereafter on 7.3.2006 on the date fixed for hearing of the case, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/defendants sought time to file Vakalatnama on their behalf. It is submitted that on the next date fixed i.e. 10.4.2006, the Vakalatnama was filed by the Madan Lal Vs. Hari Prasad and Ors. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4130/10) 2 learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants and an application under Order VI Rule 14-A read with Order VII Rule 19(1) and (2) CPC was also filed, however, no written statement was filed. Learned counsel submitted that merely because some applications are preferred, the defendant does not become entitle for extension of time to file the written statement. Drawing attention of the Court to Order sheet of the trial Court dated 6.8.2007, learned counsel submitted that an objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner/ plaintiff before the trial court at the initial stage against written statement being taken on record and therefore, at this belated stage, the trial court has seriously erred in taking the written statement on record. 3. It is to be noticed that the matter remained pending firstly for consideration of application preferred on behalf of the respondents/ defendants under Order VI Rule 14-A read with Order VII Rule 19 (1) and (2) (Rajasthan) CPC and thereafter, yet another application was preferred on behalf of the respondents/defendants under Section 151 CPC. On 6.8.2007, an application under Order VI Rule 5 CPC was preferred on behalf of the respondents/defendants but at the same time, the written statement was also filed. On objection being raised on behalf of the petitioner/ plaintiff against taking the written statement on record, it was ordered by the trial court that the Madan Lal Vs. Hari Prasad and Ors. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4130/10) 3 order with regard to taking the written statement on record shall be passed after disposal of the application preferred on behalf of respondents/defendants under Section 151 CPC. A perusal of the order sheet of the trial court produced on record reveals that the matter remained pending for consideration of various applications and no order was passed by the trial court regarding the written statement being taken on record for all these years. Now by the order impugned, the trial court has permitted the written statement being taken on record on payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner/plaintiff. 4. It is true that in terms of the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, the respondents/defendants were required to file the written statement within the stipulated period. It is also not in dispute that no order was passed by the trial court extending the time for filing the written statement in terms of Order VIII Rule 1. But then, the fact remains that the matter remained pending before the trial court for consideration of various applications preferred and no decision with regard to the written statement filed belatedly, was taken by the trial court which was earlier deferred vide order dated 6.8.2007. 5. It is settled law that the Rules of procedure are hand maiden of justice and the same should not be applied strictly so as to deny justice to the party, unless the Court is satisfied that Madan Lal Vs. Hari Prasad and Ors. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4130/10) 4 the party had motive in not following the procedure laid down strictly. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case, in the considered opinion of this Court, when the matter remained pending for consideration of various applications and the Court had deferred the decision with regard to taking the written statement filed on 6.8.07 on record, it will be unjust to deny the respondents/defendants the right to contest the suit by refusing to take the written statement already filed on record. 6. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the trial court taking written statement filed on behalf of the respondents/defendants on record to subserve the cause of justice, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine. (SANGEET LODHA),J. rp/-