1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1604 OF 2009 1) Sunil s/o Gopal Patil, R/o-Tirupati Nagar, Raver, Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon, 2) Sudhir s/o Gopal Patil, R/o-Old Savada Road, Raver, Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon, 3) Jayesh s/o Vijay Patil, Age -12 years, Through his guardian Sau. Sumanbai w/o Gopal Patil, R/o-Tirupati Nagar, Raver, Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the District Collector, Jalgaon, 2) Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Behind India Garage, Jalgaon, 3) Dy. Engineer, Public Works Department, North Division, Raver, Tq-Raver, Dist-Jalgaon, 4) Gopal s/o Dhanu Patil, R/o-Dhanora, Tq-Chopda, Dist-Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Mr.L.H. Kawale Advocate h/f. Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.Umakant Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None present for Respondent No.4 though served. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 14TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Present Writ Petition preferred by the original plaintiff under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25th September, 2008 passed by IInd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon below Exhibit 14 in Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2008. The Petitioner - original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon for declaration and possession in respect of land bearing C.T.S. No.2266, Gut No.710 admeasuring 12 R's. Summons of the said suit served on Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 24th March, 2008. Thereafter Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed application on 16th April, 2008, 30th April, 2008 and 18th June, 2008 for extension 3 of time to file their written statement. Inspite of extension of time for filing written statement, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to file their written statement. Lastly on 19th July, 2008 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed application Exhibit 14 for allowing them to file written statement. The said application came to be allowed by the impugned order dated 25th September, 2008. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to disclose any reason for extension of time to file written statement in their applications dated 16th April, 2008, 30th April, 2008 and 18th June, 2008. When the matter was posted for 'no written statement order', the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed their application on 19th July, 2008 along with written statement, and the same came to be allowed without assigning any reason. 3. Learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 states that there was delay on their part to file written statement because the concerned officer i.e. Mr. D.H. Choudhari, Deputy Engineer who was holding the charge of 4 the concerned office, was transferred. Thereafter when the new officer Mr. V.R. Deshmukh resumed the office, they immediately tendered written statement. 4. It is true that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 failed to disclose any reason for delay in their above mentioned three applications for extension of time for filing written statement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial Court allowed Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to file their written statement beyond the period of 90 days. In any case the Apex Court in the matter of M/s. R.N. Jadi and Brothers vs. Subhashchandra, reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. Page 4568 held that time limit fixed for filing written statement in the Code of Civil Procedure does not take away power of Court to accept written statement filed beyond time. Para 8 and 9 of the Judgment reads thus: "8. Order VIII, 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 5 record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order VIII, Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted Order VIII, Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and 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. 9. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of 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 the 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." 5. Considering the facts in the present case and the reasons disclosed by the learned A.G.P. at the time of opposing the present Writ Petition, I do not find any 6 substance in the present Writ Petition. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the Petitioner No.1 on behalf of all the Petitioners within four weeks from today. Writ Petition is dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/AUG09/wp1604.09