Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
1. Petitioners/Defendants are before this Court against the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-cum-Munsiff, Ramgarh in Original Suit No. 123 of 2012, whereby and whereunder a petition to accept the written statement at the stage of argument has been rejected.
2. Plaintiffs filed the suit in the year 2012 in which the defendants appeared into appearance on 08.04.2013. As the written statement was not filed within the statutory period, therefore, the defendants were debarred from filing the written statement on 17.06.2013. Plaintiffs evidence was closed on 01.07.2024 and at the fag end of the trial the petition to recall the earlier order by which the defendants were debarred from filing their written statement which was rejected and aggrieved by the said instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the delay in filing the recall petition is attributed to the conducting counsel. In cases where appellant under bona fide belief and on instruction of his counsel in the trial Court did not file written statement, the same was a good ground for condoning the delay of 35 days in filing the written statement. Reliance in this regard is placed on (2008) 11 SCC 769, Zolba Vs. Keshao & Ors.
4. It is further argued that Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not mandatory, rather it is directory in nature as held by the Apex Court (2005) 4 SCC 480, Kailash Vs. Nankhu & Ors.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the main point for consideration is whether in the present facts and circumstance where the petition to recall the order debarring the petitioners from filing written statement has been filed after almost 12 years is fit to be allowed.
6. This Court is of the view that the ground as taken for condonation of delay i.e., laches on the part of the counsel is not by itself sufficient to condone the whopping delay of more than a decade. If such condonation is allowed, the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 will be rendered redundant. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed with cost.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
