¢g£ §~ 3 IN 'IfHE HIGH c RT OF CHHATTIsGAgif BILASPUR wmi— EEHTION No. 2s 21;, 22005. ,V/ PETITIONERS :- /1. Ram Bai , W/o, Not known (Concubine) Hridaya Ram , Age 50 years, DEFENDANT /2. Rajendra Prasad , S/o Hridaya Ram, Age 22 years, o/g V [\oRA Both by caste — Rajwar q Q I M By occupation — a a“. ‘ Cultivator " R/o. Village Shivnandanpur RS. Vishrampur , Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) s Rupendra Jaiswal @ Kallu By occupation — cultivator R/o. Village Shivnandanpur RS. Vishrampur , Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) ...‘.. X§w §é 7 ’ ‘55 S/o Not known , Aged about 35 years, R/ o. Village Shivnandanpur , RS. Vishrarnpur , Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENT / Charitar Ram, PLAINTIFF S/o Hridaya Ram Aged about 50 years. By caste — Rajwa , 4 27 of the Constitution of s/ order(s[l directiontg Writ Petition under Article 2 India. for the issuance of writ X1—HC-22 -- 1372005 Heard Mr. J.A. Lohani, cou The petitioner ha prefer this writ petition under Atticie 227 of the Constition of india, questioning legalit and correness of orde dated 1-4-2005 passed by th Civii ge, Class-l, Surajpu, whereby lerned Civil udge by aliowing the lication of the plainti held that the defendan/ptitioners herein are not entitl to tile written statement on account of delay in tiling th same d als in contrantion of the provisions of Orde 8 Rui 1 of th C.P.. Brief facts leadin to filing ts writ petition are that the respondent herein filed a civil suit against the tioners herein forpermanent injunctiond served on the, etitioners herein, and pJ writn statemen as fried on b f of the petitioners herein on 3-4-005. On this, the respondent herein fd an application praying tha since the defendants have not e able to ile written staement ithin 90 days from the date of service, therefore, t r right o me the written atement be closed, nd if any written stateme is filed that should not be accepted. After hearing arguments of unsel for the prties learned Civil Judge vide the impued order obs that he petitiners herein put heir appearance on 4-2-2001, and n if that date is taken o be service of noting on he petitioners ever n, they are not titled to tile written statement as per he provisions‘of der 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. lt ha furter been observe that o 22—1 1-200 9- -2002. 18-2-2002, and 28-4-2003 the defendantptitioner herein we directe to tile writt statement, even then they had failed to file the sa e| for the petitioners on admission. tu e y ct r 3 e J d r a J i a p ff tse ed e n o ve r e e C g fhi eti sumns of the ame we thereafte, the petitioner put in earance on 14-2-2001. K mattenthe 'isw awe P, a te t w e I 12 i s re k ~mo s r r s a p ie t ben t t w h i t st a n o a gn e d t o t 1 e e t t i t e en t r s h d n 1, 1 s/es r d en m . Provisions of Order 8 Ruie 1 of the C.P.C. envisage that XI-HC—22 mam WW WW WWW -zv— ‘WW§WW r "the-defendant shal , within thirty days from the date of service of sum s on him, present a written statement of his efence: Provided that where the defendants faiis to Ie the written statement within the said period of thirty day, he shall be allowed to file the same on such oth r day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later n ninety days from the date of service of summo . ln the latest judgment in the matter of Kailash vs. Nanhku and others reported in 2005 AIR CW’ 2346, the Apex Court held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 o the C.P.C. are not mandatory, they are directory being procedural law d the Court is empowered to extend the time beyond 90 days provided defendant shows exceptional reasons by which he was prevented to file th written statement. In this case, the petition rs have not moved any such application, moreover, the written statemen has been med after about four years. Therefore, l do not find any subs nce in this writ petition and the petitioners have not been able to make out case for interference by this Court, as the trial Court has not committed an illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned order, or has no exercised its jurisdiction which was not vesting with that Court, or has f iied to exercise the jurisdiction which was vesting with it. ln the circumstances, the it petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed at the ad ission stage itselfs Consequently, M.(W.)P. N .21 43/2005 stands disposed of. Sal— ' wdge ,/ L C Bha¢00 Witt???) m n a n r