R.\o!-'-® Shi:MWjl h^ ©!Sy^i?MI"? ^iilil^LI^ i;^I^IIj:J 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0._4~:H^ /2005 PETITIONER PLAINTIFF <-:'^ dl;C ^ fy-^.< Sl \C\ ...A ^y ^ ^^- •<"- -1. Smt. Jamuna Devi, W/o. Late Inder Singh Verma, aged about 61 years, 2. Madan Mohan Verma, S/o. Late Inder Singh Verma, aged about 43 years, Occupation Business\ 3. Smt. Sarita D/o. Late Inder Singh Verma, W/o. Sahsikant Rohila aged about about 40 years, R/o. Delhi, Najaphgarh Delhi. ^4. Pratap Kumar Verma, S/o. Late Inder Singh Verma, aged about 38 years, occupation business 5. Rajkumar Verma, S/o. Late Inder Singh Verma, aged about 36 No. 1,2,4 and 5 are R/o. Kotra Road, Sharma Colony, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) RESPONDBNTS DEFENDANTS ^^''~ VERSUS Suresh Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Santlal Agrawal, aged abut 51 years, R/o. Kotra Road, Raigarh. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Raigarh. Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TQ^Q^JUSTICE IN THE MATTER vdW ^t^1^,0:^TR^ fitOTH^ WTcCT^m^ :l:J"p-^?--^-l§^-.".... 3TT^9TlR^(^fg6l^) T€ ^3n^T<PTf^TT<F ^T^^TaRN? ^2003" SWTW^fSnW^^T *i<yfo41<-i +ii<4rii Tr-fe^ ^R(^R ^3ri^T31I^?T 05.10,2005 Shri Sunil Otwaiii, couijisel for the petitioners. Shri U.K. Singh Ch£ [del, Paiiel Lawyer for flie State on advance copy. LA.N0.8515Z2005 This is an appUcationj for urge.nt hearmg. The niatter is taken up 011 Board. This iiit^run application is disposed of. W,P.No.4786J_2QOS The petitioners^ wlio ai filed this writ petition chaUq which tlie trial Court accep^ [e plaiatiffs before tiie trial Court, have agin.g the action of the trial Court by :ed tlie written stateio.ent filed by tlie defendaiit on 09.3.2005. |Leamed counsel for fhe petitioners submits that fhe defendaiit |had cause.cl his appearance before tiie. trial Coiirt on 24.4.2002. ^Ie. further submits fliat a reply to the. uijunctioii appUcation wa^ fUed by hioi on 18,10,2004 aiicl subsequeritly, after so niaii] 09.3.2005. Le.ai'ned coun permission to file written st| \ dates, written stateinent was filed on sel submits diat no appUcation for iteiKient at a belated stage was filed by the defendaat aiid fhe lo^er Court was not justified ia direcfly acceptiiig fhe written state flie aforesaid acceptanfce. <^ below was agamst the prov| baent on 09.3.2005. He snbmits tliat »f flie written statement by tlie court sions of Order VIII Riile 1 of C.P.C. He further subniits that acc^rdiag to this provision, the written statenieut niiist have beenj filed wifhui 30 days from tlie date of service of suiainons ou thd defendaiits and at the Biost he should h • SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 n *i 1*101 S?1TT^ ^Svf <-«iqioq,tP-nl\1<l<S, Rlc61'(4y'< ^.f. i^o- 4^&^ 3n^$Tq?TR^ich ^CT3IT^$Ta?WP 3TT^$T q^cp ('^fgcRg) W^ 2003" S^ff^R^fS^ W^^T \'T|II -^-1 liave been aUowed to file wri1 clays only aad thereafter defendaats should not have Leanied counsel draw^ tlie provisions offhe Order Leanied coziusel also sheets of the trial Court aii{ sheets in. betweeii 24,4.20( appearance ancl before filiut graated tmie to tlie de.fend| recordiag reasons eitlier ui instance after 24.4.2002 an4 VIII Rzile. 1 of C.P.C. The Apex Court iii th^ in. 3005 tilie. sch.edule provicle.d by orcleij writteu stateBient is director^ providuig time schedule fo^ Order VIII Riile 1 of C.P.C. hearuig. The provisions spe^s cloes not impose aii einbarg^ the tlme. Tliough, the laagz^ VIII ofC.P.C. is couched in penal consequence flowiag fi|c beuig ia the doniam of ti^e <pi<i[o<Tli +)McaT^'fe^^Rl^l^ ^ari^Tsn^sT 1lten statement to aa oiiter Imiit of 90 ^lie written stateaieut filed by the |een accepted. the attention of tliis coiirt towards Rule 1 ofC.P.C. Iraws mv attention towards fhe order ft szibmits that ui none of the order ^2 to 09.3.2005 (i.e., after causmg ^ written statement) tlie trial Court |ait to file his written state.menf by |ie first iastance or at aiiy subseqiie.nt pnor to 09.3.2005 m terms of Order matter of -9s Ncm.hku A ^SCW_2346 has held tliat "tlie time VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C.Jor filing tlie and not mandatory. The purpose of filiiig flie. writteii statement under |is to expedite aiid not to scuttie tlie. out a disability on the defenclaat. It oii flie power of the Coiirt to extend jage of fhe. proviso to Rule 1 of Order |negative form, it does iiot specify aiiy om flie non coinpUaace. The provision procedural kiw it has to be held SP/FS/2005-20,000 *i 1*101 a»*n^ \dw| ^<|<|io«,u>-^11<-l<l<»,fclrtN-iy^ VJ -f- No- L('1 ^-fe (B_-< 7£ ^2005 3n^$T<I5TRrlJ4) ^TT3n^$T*^i<h ^ / \^\ 3TT^?Ttraq? (^c|I^c|<e{) B^iTW^fSd OT^^T -3- directory aiid uot maadatorj tiine for fiUng written statem| by Order VIII, Rule 1 ofC.P.C] It appears fhat objection before the trial Co} objection should be dealt plaintiffs, if so advised, niaj Court and if such aii obje] dispose of the same at the ^ speakiiig order ia accordmic^ Witli the aforesaid <pi^Io<i1<i ^i^^V^'fe^l KRi^i^ ^^yf^r^^T The power of'fhe Court to extencl |knt beyond the tinie schediile provided p. is iiot completely taken away/'. ^he plahitiffs liave not fUed aiiy such [irt aad have directly approached this Coiirt after fhewritt.eu state|me.nt was accepted, In fhe facts aad circumstauces of fhe case wlien the plaintifFs are raisnig fhis point for fhe first time before. fh^s Court, I deeni it proper fh.at tiie ^ifh by 'the tri.al Court • firstly. Tlie raise flieir objection before the trial 'tion is raised, the tnal Court shaU arUest possible date aiid shatl pass a ? with law. obsei-vations, tiiis petition staiids disposed of at fhe motion stalge itse.tf. Consequentiy, M.W.P. ^0.3869/2005 also staiids disposed of. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge SR/FS/2005-20,000 L^