Rina Mitra v. Block Development Officer, Nagrakata And Others

Harish Tandon, J.:— This revisional application is directed against order no. 54 dated December 21, 2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalpaiguri in Title Suit No. 20 of 2009 by which the written statement filed belatedly, is accepted. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the order of appointment passed in favour of the opposite party no. 6 herein is illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is no doubt true that the service of summons were served on the opposite party no. 6 but the written statement came to be filed after the expiration of the statutory period. The court held that the said opposite party was under some constraint which was beyond conceivable imagination and therefore extended the time to file the written statement.

The core point of attack in this revisional application is that the trial court has considered the extraneous facts dehors the pleadings of the parties in accepting the written statement belatedly. The opposite party no. 6 is represented by Mr. Maitra who submits on instructions that because of the lapses and laches on the part of Advocate upon whom his client's reposed confidence, she should not be penalised. It is no doubt true that there is no express reflection of those facts in this application filed before the trial court but learned Advocate who was entrusted with the matter appeared while moving the said application and pleaded the ground which was accepted by the court and found sufficient to allow the extension of time. The time-limit provided in Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is not mandatory and directory in nature. The court, in exceptional and special circumstances, can extend the time as the litigation should normally be adjudicated on merit. The action of the opposite party no. 6 cannot be said to have free from any blame as some laches are attributable to her conduct.

It is true that the litigant should not be penalised for the laches and negligence of the lawyer but it is equally true that the litigant should also prove his readiness and promptness in approaching the said lawyer. Since the trial court has exercised the discretion by accepting the written statement, the court of revision should seldom interfere with such order unless it is tainted with unreasonability, irrationality and beyond the conceivable legal parameters.

This court finds that the trial court ought to have imposed certain conditions in the form of costs before extending the time to file the written statement. The order impugned is, thus, modified to extend the time to file the written statement, is extended subject to the payment of costs assessed at Rs. 18000/- to be paid to Advocate on record of the plaintiff/petitioner before the trial court within ten days from date. In the event of failure to pay costs, as indicated above, within the time framed herein, the written statement filed by the said opposite party shall not be deemed to have been accepted and the trial court shall proceed with the suit ex parte against the said opposite party.

The trial court is further requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order.

CO No. 1153 of 2014 is, thus, disposed of.

There will be no order as to costs.