HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR VLF. Art. 227 No. 5262 (7F EGii PETITIONENR: Rak€sh Nagarkar, aged 34 yaars, 3011 0f Shii Dattatray Nagarkar, resident of Tilaknagar, Bilaspur tahsil and district BjJaspur (Ce) (Plaintiff) VERSUS RESPONDENTS: Smt. Mantora Bai, aged 70 yeaxs, Wife of late Shri Dashrath, Bhara‘rlal, aged 50 years, son of late Shri Dashrath, _Shatrughan, aged 4O years, son of late Shri Dashrath, Gangottar, aged 35 years, son of late Shn' Dashxath, 4. A11 above are residents of village Saida, tahsii Takhatpur, district Bilaspur (C.G.). Kanti Bai, aged 3O years, daughter of late Shri Dashrath, Indira Bai, aged 28 years, daughter of late Shri Dashrath, Gayatri, aged 25 years, daughter of late Shm' Dashrath, 6. All above No. 5 to 7 through Mantora Bai wife of late Shri Dashrath, resident of Viiiage Saida, tahsil Takhatpur, district Bilaspur (C..G.). State of Chhattisgarh through the District Collector, Biiaspur (C.G.). (Defendallts) . OI WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sha.rma, J.) Present-Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L. for the State/respondent No. 8. Respondents No. 1 to 7 not noticed. ORDER (Passed on O9} 09/ 201 1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 3/ 8/ 201 1 passed by First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in civil suit No. 36~Aj 2010 whereby while application filed on behalf of the petitioner for proceeding exparte against respondents No. 1 to 3 and not taking written statement on record has been dismissed. Mr. Somnath Verma, Advocate for the petitioner 85 Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, P.L. for the State] respondent No. 8 are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No. 1 to 3 were not obligation to file Written statement Within 90 days of service of summon to them but they have not flied written statement within stipulated period and even they have filed written statement after filing of the application for proceeding exparte when judgment under Order 8 Rule 1 {in 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 but without leave of the Court and any application Court below has taken written statement on record and has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. Order impugned perused. By relying the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Jolab v. Keshav and Others 2008(2) S.C.C.D. Page 741 (S.C.) and Ushabala saheb Swami and Others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others 200814) S.C.C.D. Page 2261 {S.C.) Court below has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. It appears from the copy of the order-sheets that respondents No. 1 to 3 have not tiled any application for permission/leaile for filing written statement after stipulated period. Court is empowered to permit the party to file written statement after stipulated period but parties are required to show sufficient cause and exceptional circumstances. Court below has accepted the written statement, present petitioner is a plaintiff. In these circumstances again reopening of the case and quashing the discretion exercise by the trial Court would not be justified but at the time of allowing such written statement Court ought to have imposed the cost. For the purpose of such imposition of cost notice K , ‘ V , ‘ ‘ to respondents and opportunity of hean‘ng would be anly futile exercise. Consequently, petition is diSposed of with the following observations thatz— 0n payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/ — on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 to the petitioner Within 15 days from' today before the trial Court, written statement filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 be taken on record. No onier as to costs. i Sd/— a T.P. Sharma i Judge 5. Inten'm application stands deposed of. y