Petitioner sought recall of an order debarring him from filing a written statement in an election petition. High Court rejected application, finding petitioner negligent and deliberate in delay, noting case must be decided expeditiously.
Application for recall dismissed; petitioner debarment remains in force.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7579 of 2013
Patna High Court CWJC No.7579 of 2013 (4) dt.26-09-2013
2 / 7
23.1.2012. In the said election petition, the petitioner is Defendant No. 12 and by order dated 23.1.2012, he had been debarred from filing his written statement.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7579 of 2013 (4) dt.26-09-2013
3 / 7
order dated 4.3.2013 on the ground that an election petition was required to be disposed of expeditiously keeping in mind the time frame. The court apparently was not satisfied with the plea of the petitioner that in spite of due diligence, the written statement could not be filed at an earlier stage.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7579 of 2013 (4) dt.26-09-2013
4 / 7
and 17.8.2012.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7579 of 2013 (4) dt.26-09-2013
5 / 7
19.2.2013, which is Annexur-2 to the present application, as to what documents the petitioner lacked which prevented him from filing the written statement. There is no reference in the said application as to the nature of ailment which the petitioner’s wife was suffering from, which prevented the petitioner from filing written statement. So far as the jurisdiction of the courts to extend time for filing written statement is concerned, it is true that the courts have held the Proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be directory in nature and the courts have held that in appropriate case the trial court can extend the date for filing written statement after recording reason and satisfaction that such extension is essentially required for the ends of justice, if for genuine and bona fide reasons such written statement could not be filed within time.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7579 of 2013 (4) dt.26-09-2013
6 / 7
(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the object behind substituting Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the present shape was to curve the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying disposal of cases much to the chagrin of plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the court for quick relief. In my opinion, an election petition is required to be decided expeditiously as delay in decision of an election petition will frustrate the very purpose of it if the period for which the elections are held, is allowed to pass during the pendency of election case. In my opinion, though, Proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directory but time as prescribed therein for filing written statement should be extended only in exceptional circumstance where the court is of the opinion that there was bona fide reason behind a defendant not filing the written statement within time and non filing of such written statement will cause grave injustice.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7579 of 2013 (4) dt.26-09-2013
7 / 7
persons were allowed to file their written statements and, therefore, this petitioner should also have been allowed also cannot be accepted. The last order by which one of the defendants was allowed to file the written statement after recalling the earlier order dated 23.1.2012 was passed on 17.8.2012 whereas the petitioner filed his application on 19.2.2013, i.e. six months thereafter. The reasons assigned in his application for not filing the written statement in time are wholly unsatisfactory and in my opinion unbelievable.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)
Sanjay/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an order debarring a defendant from filing a written statement in an election petition can be recalled.
Whether the Proviso to Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC is mandatory or directory in the context of election petitions.
Whether the petitioner's reasons for delayed application were bona fide and sufficient to extend the time limit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors.Distinguished¶27
(2005) 4 SCC 480 · Who else cites this
Smt. Sunita Devi & Ors. Vs. Abdhesh Kumar Sinha @ Kamleshwari Pd. Sinha & Ors.Distinguished¶27
2005 (2) PLJR 482
Mani Lal Sah
State of Bihar through the District Returning Officer-cumCollector, Khagaria
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
