IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.975 of 2008 PARMHANS SINGH Versus SHANKAR BHAGAT ----------- 2 9/7/2008 Heard counsel for the defendant- petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2008 rejecting his application to recall the order debarring him from filing his written statement. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is true that the defendant petitioner had appeared in the suit on 20.4.2002 and an order debarring him from filing written statement was passed on 27.6.2002. The petitioner has claimed that he had filed his written statement on 16.7.2002 and thereafter he had filed applications for recalling the order dated 27.6.2002. which has been rejected by the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court that the suit in question was filed before 1.7.2002, i.e, day when the said provisions were introduced requiring filing of the written statement within a period of one month from the date of appearance and in any event within a period of three months. He, however, submits that this provision was not applicable when suit was 2 filed or the day when summon was served on him, i.e, 30.4.2002. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot be subjected to the rigours of the amended provisions of order VIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. In the opinion of this Court, counsel for the petitioner has a valid point. The suit being of prior to 1.7.2002, the order debarring him from filing written statement on 27.6.2002 within a period of two months and seven days counting from the date of appearance of the petitioner on 20.4.2002 is wholly unjustified because in the earlier provision under the Civil Procedure Code as they existed prior to amendment, there was no such restriction. That being so, the order of the court dated 27.6.2002 was not correct. It is true that the petitioner has thereafter unnecessarily been raising this issue before the court below by taking one or another ground for recalling the order dated 27.6.2002 when as a matter of fact he ought to have moved this Court under Civil Revision Application. It definitely has caused sufficient harassment to the plaintiff- opposite party and a period of more than five years have been lost. Thus, this Court would set aside the 3 order dated 29.4.2008 and direct that the written statement filed by the petitioner on 16.7.2002 would be taken on record only after the petitioner would pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousands) to the plaintiff-opposite party which he must do, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The court below after taking the written statement of the petitioner on the records would ensure that the hearing of the suit is expedited. With the aforementioned observations/ directions this application is allowed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar