•i ^ © IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION N0.^3>33 / 2004 PETITIONER Plaintiff ^- /Smt.LaImuni Devi Gupta, W/o. Shri Ramkedar Prasad, Caste-Roniyar ^^?^'^^' CGUPta) AQe about 50 yrs/ R/o- v'"- ^••' U*^ v -^**' ^..^C.^'^ U*<" Kanakpur, Thana-Jainagar, Tah. ^'^ ^s^ Surajpur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Defendants VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Surguja (C.G.) .\ 0^ w^^ ''2. Commandant 10th Batalian, Kanakpur, Silphili, Tehsil-Surajpur, Dist. Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^±^.. XI-HC-22 ^T^T^ tN^^N $^+iicn ^115^ + 'S^S ^MId^t, ^tilwKo, Ri<yti^y 3rr^r '<^r% ±...^..,.^^1°^ ^.....^...1.......;.....-..,..^ ^ • WW81 ^NIW f^re^T* CT^!?1RK^^I 16/12/2004 Shri F.8. Khare, Counsel fi^r the petitioner. <^l^id41'?l '^N^f ^ fe^ iRn^K '^<gNH^i^ Smt Foiizia Mirza, Paael Lj Hearcl on adniission as wel| as on M.W.P.No.4691/2004, Leaiiied Court below vide written statenieut on record filed Hmitation as fixed iinder O ^wer for tlie State, mentionmg specific reasons, Th^ petition and the conteutionl period of 90 days Court below statement on record. Ordcr 8 Riilc 1 ofthc C.P.C] arder dated 06/10/2004 took flie by flie respondents after 90 days of |der 8 Rulc 1 oftheC,P.C.,by said order has been challenged m [of the petitiouer is that after fhe [is debaiTed from takmg written reads as below; "1. Written statetaeat- fhe defendaiit shaU, ., and OrdcrS Riile 9 ofthe C.P.C, withiti tliit-ly days fi^m the date of seivice of sumiinons on hini, pr^sent a written stateBient of his dcfence; Provided fhat ^here the defendmit fails to file the wntten statemel.it withio. ffae said period of tliiiTy days, he shaU b^ such other day, as m.a^ for reasons to be recd shaU not be later fhaii seivice of summons. 9. Subseanent aUowed to file fhe same on y t>e specified by tMe Court, |rded ia writiag, but which Eametv davs from ftie date of lieadis&^- No pleadmg subsequent to fhe writljen statenient of a defendaiit ^gt XI-HC-22 ^gr^f ^ a^t^ ^PTW^WT q^> ^ "3^ ^I^I^^, ^tll^l1!^, fa^1^S^< WH^II <$hNlob ani^ "qira? ^ ^o.q-SS^ |0( ""M ^oo (-^. Idl<b^ r ^ W^T'g'CT^T ^^ other thaii bv way of claim shall be present^d court ao.cl iipon such but the Court mav atl 4eteiice to set-ofiT or counter- except.by the leave of flie ttTms as flie Court fbinks fit; aiiy time reauire a written statement or additional of fhe parties aiid fix days for presenting thej From a barc reaclmg, it power to ask for a written stateii(< limitation as enunierated uiider <{ been expired, fhe saine does notj accept tlie written statement, The order passed by fhe be said to be passed causmg mi^ process of law. In these circuBistances^ th^ and is accordmgty dismissed. C^ and I.A.No.8772/2004 stand wiitten stateixient froin aiiy a| timLe of not raore than fhirtv jsame^ r^veals that the Court ample (ent at aiiy thne, thereforc, tf fhe ^rder 8, Rule 1 ofthe C.P.C., has czirtail fhe power of the Court to triAl <^l^$d4)^ W^f*9ft^ <(^^< "^ ^rf^PRf ^IT^T clisp^sed Ck>urt is not aii order which caii caiTiage ofjustice or misusmg the petition deser^es to be disxnissed msequently M.W,P.NOj.46^1/2004 of. Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge [^^l^ [^^ t^\^