IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.411 of 2008 GUDDU SINGH @ RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus RAMJEE SINGH & ORS ----------- 2. 26.8.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court the requirement of filing of written statement cannot be waived by the defendant on his possible assumption that the plaint of the suit is fit to be rejected under the purported exercise of power in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. The defendant has to strictly abide by the norms laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure which is in no uncertain terms in Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. fixes a firm time limit for filing the written statement. That having not been done the court below by its order dated 6.9.2007 had rightly debarred the defendant- petitioners in the suit filed in September, 2005 from filing of the written statement despite their being served summons in December, 2005. At this stage counsel for the petitioners would submit that it was a bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioners or their counsel that they kept 2 on chasing the matter relating to Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. in view of an application filed by the petitioners on 19.12.2005 and were expecting that the plaint of the suit shall itself be rejected. Such alleged bonafide mistake of the petitioners could have been appreciated till the stage of rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner but the very fact that even such application of the petitioner was rejected on 22.3.2006 and yet the petitioners did not file their written statement on the ground of pendency of a review application for recalling the aforesaid order dated 22.3.2006 can hardly be a ground for condoning the delay in filing of the written statement which in fact was filed only on 4.10.2007 and that too after they had been debarred from filing the written statement by the order of the court below dated 6.9.2007. Realising this aspect of the matter, counsel for the petitioner would pray for indulgence of this Court by taking into account the interest of justice as the petitioner would be non- suited on account 3 of rejection of the written statement. This Court taking into account that the suit is for declaration of right and title of a valuable piece of land of Rs. 6,00,000/- approximately in the interest of justice would allow such prayer of the petitioner on a condition that he would suitably compensate the plaintiff- opposite parties who have been unnecessarily harassed for a period of more than two years awaiting filing of the written statement of the petitioner defendant. In view of the fact that there is a definite and deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing of the written statement for a period of more than two years this Court would, therefore, afford an opportunity to the petitioners to get their written statement on record provided they would pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the plaintiff- opposite parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In case the petitioner pays a sum of Rs. 5000/- to the plaintiff- opposite parties and produces an evidence to this effect before the court 4 below, their written statement filed on 4.10.2007 will be taken on record. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/