^6% mOH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BIIASPOR W.P.(2271 No. 1902/2008 PBTITIONERS 1. Shanti Bai, aged about 40 years, dau^itcr of Chhakkul @ Chhanaku 2. Shyam Bai, aged about 78 years, widow of late Chhalskul @ Chhanaku, Both are Bhaina by caste, R/o Loharsi (Soa) Tah. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Versos RESPONDBNTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the CoUector, Distt BUaspur (CG) 2. Radhe aged about 75 years, son of Awadh Caste Bhaith R/o Loharsi (Son) Tah Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur 3. Firatu Ram son of Shiv Singh, about 75 years, R/o Malhar, P.S. Masturi, Distt. BUaspur (CG) ORAL ORDER 31-3-2008 Dhlrendra Mishra, J. Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate, for the ^titionere. Shri Arun, Govt. Advocate, for fhe State. 2. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution ®f India, the petitioner has impugned fhe order dated 23-1-2008 (Annexure P-5) whereby leamed trial Court has rejected fhe application offhe petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 8 Rule 10 rcad with Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and permitted the respondent No.2 to file written statement 3. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners submits that fhe respondent No. 2 did not file any written stateinent within fhe statutory period of 90 days and also dld not flle any appiication for extension of tiaie. In these circijmstances, the petitioners/plaintiffs moved an application for closing fhe -^ (^^ right of the respondent No. 2 to ffle written statement and pronoiince fhe judgment in accordance with Order 8 Rule 10 of C.P.C. However the trial Court by the impugned order, has taken the written statement filed by fhe respondent No. 2 on record and rejected fhe application. 4. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon7ble Supreme Court m fhe matter of R.N. ZADI AND BR@THBRS AND OTHERS -V- SUBHASHCHASIDRAS it was argued that Order 8 Riile 1 of C.P.C. and pn>viso fhereto are mandatory in nature. 5. From perusal ofthe impugned order, it appears that the Court below considering fhe fact that on earlier date, some application was filed by respondent No. 3 for addun®his name as the defendant and fhe same was belatedly decided and also considering the fact that fhe defendant No. 2 had filed written statement on 23-10-2007 itself, the appUcation of tfae petitioners was rejected and wntten statement filcxi by the defendant No. 2 was taken on record with an observatton that the delay was not intentional. 6. In the matter of R.N. ZADI1 also, tt has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Comt that though Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. has been couched in a negative language implying inandatory character, the same is not without exceptions and the courts, when caUed upon to interpret the nature of the provision, 1(2007)6SCC420 <^^?"^ ^ \. ^J, ^s-^ '(§"3 may, keeping in view fhe enttre context in which the provision cauie to be enacted, hold the saine to be directory though worded in the negative fonn. 7. Thus after going through fhe impugned order, I am of the opinion tihat fhere is no iUegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 8. The petition being devoid of substance, is liable to be dismissed and fhe saiue is dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge