JUDGMENT Devi Prasad Singh, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. A short question involved in this case is that according to amendment done in the Code of Civil Procedure, the written statement should have been filed by the defendant petitioner within a statutory stipulated period. Since the petitioner had not filed the written statement within period provided under Order VIII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure i.e. the period of 90 days petitioner's application has been rejected by the trial Court as well as revisional Court on the ground that there is no provision for extention of time in the amended Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly petitioner has lost his right to file the written statement.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court, AIR 2003 Delhi 280, Dr. Sukhdev Singh v. Amrit Pal Singh and Ors., the Delhi High Court while interpreting the relevant provision of the amended Code of Civil Procedure arrived to the conclusion that the delay in filing the written statement may be condoned by the Court in case grounds are sufficient. Paras 5 and 6 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: -
"5. Having heard Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the respective pleas urged before me. I am of the view that this is a case where the delay in filing of the written statement deserves to be condoned. Firstly it is a suit for partition concerning a family members where every endeavour should be made for amicable settlement. Even otherwise, the mandate under Section 89 effort ought to be made to settle the matter. Secondly, the defendant had already filed the written statement in the suit in District Court. Hence it could not be the situation that the defendant was delaying the case, but on account of the attempts at settlement written statement was not filed. Next the learned Counsel expressed reservation that the defendant would attempt to improve its case. In case any pleas are sought to be taken which are inconsistent with the earlier written statement or any admission is sought to be withdrawn, it is always to the plaintiff to assail the same, Mr. Sanghi states that certain subsequent events are only sought to be brought on record. I need not go into this question at this stage.
6. Reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank, AIR 2002 SC 2487, wherein while dealing with the time limit prescribed for filing reply under Section 13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Court held as under at page 2489-2490:
"The intention to provide a time frame to file reply is really meant to expedite the hearing of such matters and to avoid unnecessary adjournments to linger on the proceedings on the pretext of filing reply. The provision however, as framed does not indicate that it is mandatory in nature in case the extended time exceeds 15 days no penal consequences are prescribed therefor. The period of extension of time "not exceeding 15 days" does not prescribe any kind of period of limitation. The provision appears to be directory in nature, which the consumer forums are ordinarily supposed to apply, in- a proceedings before them. It cannot be said that in no event, whatsoever the reply of the respondent could be taken on record beyond the period of 45 days. The provision is more by way of procedure to achieve the object of speedy disposal of the such disputes. It is an expression of 'desirability' in strong terms. But it fails short of creating of any kind of substantive right in favour of the complainant by reason of which the respondent may be debarred from placing his version in defence in any circumstances whatsoever. It is for the forum or the commission to consider all facts and circumstances alongwith the provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply as a guideline and then to exercise its discretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind principles of natural justice as well. The forum may refuse to extend time beyond 15 days, in view of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act but exceeding the period of 15 days of extension, would not cause any fatal illegality in the other."
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had further relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 2487, Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank. The Apex Court in the said judgment ruled that the intention to provide a time frame to file a reply is really meant to expedite the hearing of such matters and to avoid unnecessary adjournments to linger on the proceedings on the pretext of filing reply. The Apex Court further arrived to the conclusion, the provision does not indicate that it is a mandatory in nature. However, the judgment of Apex Court has been considered by the Delhi High Court in Dr. Sukh Deo Singh's case (supra).
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the written statement is ready and he wants to file the same immediately. After considering the facts of the present case as well as impugned order, I am of the view that petitioner may be permitted to file written statement.
6. In view of above the impugned judgment and orders dated 12.2.2004 and 20.1.2004 are quashed with consequential benefits. The petitioner may file the written statement which is ready as per statement of petitioners Counsel, in the Court below on 27.3.2004. The case has been reported to be fixed for 27.3.2004.
7. In view of above it is provided that the petitioner may file written statement on 27.3.2004, and thereafter the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance to law.
8. With the aforesaid observation writ petition is disposed of finally. The learned trial Court shall expedite the suit and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of filing of written statement in accordance to law.