;/f%\e% \MV? mm (W) MW,W,W WWW WWW 1=Q§W $aiméné¥1 /v "); HIGH COURT 0 PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 DEFENDANTS jDRAL ORDER 25. O3. 2008 DHIRENDRA M13HRA, J. Shri S.C. Verma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Agra wal, P.L. for fhe State, H€a1¢ ' F CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3754 of 2005 Bhuvajl Lal Patel, S/o, Patel, aged about 57 Advocate/Agriculture, R/o. Village Rampur (bade) Tahsil and District Raigarh (C.G.) Rukmandhwaj Patel, S/o. late Shri Devdhar Patel, aged about 43 years, Occupation- Government Sarvant, Nagar, Govt. Colcny, Qr. Distt. Raigarh (C‘ G.) Ghurauram, S/o. Anantram Caste Mali, aged about 47 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o. South Chakardhamagar, Near State Bank of India, Raigarh City, District, Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Raigarh(C.G.) Manik Motwani, S,o Shri L.C. Motwani, aged about 24 years, R/o Sindhi Colony, Raigarh (ca) Late Shri Devdhar years, Occupation R/o. Chakradhar No7, Raigarh City, throu gh-Collector— By thiS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 17.6.2005 passed in Civil Suit No. ’71~ A/ O2, whereby the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Raigarh has wed the respondents/defendants to tile >/ mm 1T1 200 @ mw,m,famgx Wm 111 200 mm (113W) WIT m WWW mmiwm $$mmanésr wz, their written statements even after the lapse of 90 days from the date of service of summDns upon them in contravention of the Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC. Leanled counsel fc‘r the petitioner submits that the Court below has not assigned any mason for allowing the defendants to file their written statements beyond the period of 90 days which is necessaiy in View of the Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and themfore the same is not in accordance with law. - wgégm I have heard leaxne counsel for the petitioner. The Court below by the impugned order allowed the defendants to file their w tten statements with an observation that on 24. 1 1.2004, counsel f r the defendant No.4 had prayed for copy of the documents filed y the plaintih‘ and on this ground he written statement. On 22.11.2004 also, the documents w not supplied to the above defendant which was admitted by counsel of both the parties and the documents were ultimately supplied to him only on 16th March 2005 and therefore the written/statement was hled on that date. sought adjournment for e It is a settled law that the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC is not mandatory and the Civil Courts in appropriate cases can allow the defendant to nle their written statements even after the expiIV of 90 davs, where they are satisfied that the written statement could not be filed within the aforesaid period for valid I‘EaSOIIS . ’ g e H—HC—78 WW,W,W Wm 141200 mm (W) akmmfm‘a Wam §l€tm mmm wmm éwifattm ., gr After going through the impugnsd order, I am of the considemd opinion that the Court below has not committed anv illegality or iniirmity on jurisdictional error in passing the impugncd Older which Warrants interference in exercise of the jun‘sdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the pe‘ition being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed andKis accordingly hereby dismissed at the Sci/- ,Dhirendra Mishra \ Judge \ admission stage itself. s