Allowed

Ainul Ansari v. Hussain Ansari

Jharkhand HC22 Jun 2023WPC/1324/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing orders debarring petitioners from filing a written statement and rejecting a late file. Balancing justice with procedural rules, the Court directed the Trial Court to accept the statement upon deposit of costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Trial Court to accept the petitioners' written statement subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- costs within fifteen days.

Ainul Ansari Vs Hussain Ansari — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 1324 of 2018

¶2

Ainul Ansari

¶3

Mehboob Ansari … Petitioner(s) Versus

¶4

Hussain Ansari

¶5

Idris Ansari

¶6

Shabbir Ansari

¶7

Jawahir Ansari

¶8

Ahsanullah Ansari … Respondent(s)

¶9

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J .

¶10

For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent(s):

¶11

11/22.6.2023: As per the office note, it appears that notice has been validly served upon respondent No. 1 as the notice has been personally served. None appears on behalf of the respondents, thus, this Court is proceeding exparte against the respondents.

¶12

In this petitions, the petitioner have prayed for quashing the order dated 19.5.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bokaro in Title Suit No. 17/2023 whereby defendant Nos. 5 and 6 (the petitioners herein) were debarred from filing their written statement. Further it has been prayed for quashing the order dated 5.5.2016 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bokaro rejected the petition dated 17.4.2015 for acceptance of the written statement.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners appeared on 7.1.2014 and thereafter took an adjournment for filing written statement, but the petitioners could not file the written statement within time specified. He further submits that on 19.5.2014 the learned Trial Judge debarred the petitioners from filing the written statement. He also submits that ultimately the petitioners filed the written statement on 17.4.2015 along with list of documents and an application to accept the same, but by the second impugned order dated 5.5.2016, the same was rejected on the ground that earlier on 19.5.2014 the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement.

¶14

From the record, I find that the plaintiff had instituted the suit praying therein for following relief(s);

¶15

(a) A decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff right, title, intererst in the land described in schedule of the plaint and recovery of the schedule land if found dispossessed during the pendency of the suit.

¶16

¶17

(b) A decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 their agents and their men, to enter into the land described in the plaint and to do any construction work in schedule land.

¶18

¶19

(d ) A decree for any other relief/reliefs for which plaintiff found entitled to.

¶20

Considering the nature of claim of the plaintiff, I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the written statement of the petitioners should have been accepted. Though, there is delay in filing the written statement, but in absence of the written statement, there is high probability that injustice will be caused.

¶21

Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 in paragraph 45 has held as under;

¶22

“45. However, no straitjacket formula can be laid down except that the observance of time schedule contemplated by Order 8 Rule 1 shall be the rule and departure therefrom an exception, made for satisfactory reasons only. We hold that Order 8 Rle 1, though couched in mandatory form, is directory being a provision in the domain of processual law.”

¶23

Thus, I am inclined to allow this application directing the Trial Court to accept the written statement of the petitioners subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/-, to be deposited before the trial court within fifteen days, which would be disbursed to the plaintiff. If the said cost is not deposited within fifteen days, this order will not be given effect to.

¶24

Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.

¶25

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶26

Anu/-CP2.

Ainul Ansari v. Hussain Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ainul Ansari v. Hussain Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Rana Vs Chhatradhari Rana

Basant Lal Sah Vs Kedar Nath Verma

Puja Lohia Vs Sanjay Kumar Khowala

Binita Singh Vs Raj Kumar Barwalia

Messrs Chhatturam Horilram Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sindarpal Singh And Anr.

Ahdil Mian Vs Manjoor Mian