← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/1025/2016dismissed

Murari Prasad v. Puniya Devi And ORS

2016-07-12Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1025 of 2016 ====================================================== Murari Prasad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Puniya Devi & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajkumar Rajesh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 12-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the order passed by the court below dated 07.08.2015 passed by Subordinate Judge-II, Biharsharif (Nalanda) in Title Suit No.151 of 1971.

It appears that earlier the defendants were debarred from filing the written statement. Subsequently they appeared and filed application for condoning the delay and for accepting the written statement. The court below considered the grounds for condoning the delay and thereafter considered the settled principles of law and held, for the interest of justice, that the written statement filed by defendants is to be accepted. Therefore, the court below awarded cost and then has accepted the written statement. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the court below has no jurisdiction to accept the written statement even after 90 days. It has already been held by the Hon'ble

Patna High Court CWJC No.1025 of 2016 (2) dt.12-07-2016 Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Thapar Vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014 (2) P.L.J.R. 284 (SC) that power of Court to extend time for filing written statement beyond time schedule prescribed by Rule 1 is not taken away completely. Extension of time is permissible not in a routine manner but only if it was needed to be given in exception cases so as to grave injustice. In the present case, the Court considered the explanation for delay and thereafter it has condoned the same and extended time. The written statement has already been filed, which has been accepted.

In my opinion, therefore, the order cannot be said to be irrational order or it has occasioned failure of justice so as to call for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, this writ application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Harish/- U