IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2103 of 2008 FAZLUR RAHMAN Versus ATIKUR RAHMAN & ORS ----------- 2 19/12/2008 Heard Mr. Purushottam Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. In a partition suit the defendant- petitioner has been debarred from filing the written statement on the ground that he did not choose to do so within the prescribed time. The petitioner before the court below it his application seeking condonation of delay in filing of written statement had taken a specific plea that he could not properly instruct his counsel. It is true that Order VIII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a fixes a time limit for filing of the written statement, but then the same is not mandatory and can definitely be extended in an appropriate case. Here is the case where the petitioner was trying to contest a partition suit which is basically a family dispute. Thus if for the reasons as advanced by him, being some sort of 2 communication gap between him and his lawyer, a prayer was made for allowing the written statement to be taken on records by recalling the order debarring him from filing the written statement, ordinarily the same should have been allowed even after imposing some cost. This Court, finding that the delay in filing of the written statement from the date of appearance of the petitioner in the suit is around five months, would accordingly allow prayer of the petitioner for acceptance of the written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the plaintiff within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the petitioner deposits this amount in the Court the same may be paid to the plaintiff-opposite party and the written statement of only the petitioner be taken on the records. This Civil Revision Application is accordingly disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)