High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Kaikei Devi v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - C No. 61043 of 2006  RD-AH 19144 (13 November 2006)
Hon. Tarun Agarwala,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apparently there is a delay of approximately 30 days in filing the written statement. The trial court rejected the application of the defendant seeking permission to file the written statement on the ground that it was beyond stipulated period as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The revisional court has also dismissed the revision of the defendant. Consequently, the writ petition.
In my view, the trial court as well as the revisional court fell in error in rejecting the application of the defendant seeking permission to file the written statement. The Supreme Court in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumasab vs. Kumar and others, A.I.R. 2006 SC 396, has held, that the Court has the inherent power to enlarge the time for filing the written statement and that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. are directory in nature.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to permit the defendant to file the written statement within ten days' from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order upon payment of cost of Rs.1000/- which shall be deposited by the defendant before the trial court within the same period. The amount so deposited shall be withdrawn by the plaintiff.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.