G) 8mm BENEH _C fqg‘O (/ § IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUEE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. Sgm /2005 PETITIONER:- Heera KumarS/O Jhadhuram kurrey Aged‘about 25 years R/o Village Chllllgstl TahsH 85 Dlstt Bllaspur (C G ) CDE “\cm\‘\\ *1 VERSUS RESPONDENTS:— ,/ 1) Manoj Kumar Gupta S/o— S.D. Gupta Aged about 35 years R/o— Bus Stand Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) (Plaintiff no. 1) Bhola Singh S/o— Vasuclev Singh Aged about 44 years R/o— Khaparganj Bilaspur Distt— Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintig ‘ rig-.2) Suresh Sahu S/o— Gopal Sahu Aged about 31 years R/o- Shyam nagar Lingyadih Bilaspur (C.G.) ‘ ( Plaintiffs no 3) Smt. Gulab Bai S/o— Late Jhadhuram Kurrey Caste Satnami R/o— Village Sapia Kharsia district Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ( Defendant no. g) Smt. Hara Bai D/o— Late Jhadhuram - Kurrey Aged about 58 years Caste Satnami ( Defendant “119%3‘) Smt.’ Mongara Bai D/o— Jhadhuram Kurrey Caste Satnami ( Defendant no 4) Respondent no 5 856 both R/o Village Masturl Tahsil Masturi D1str10t~ Bilaspur (C.G.) x7) Gulab Singh Kurrey Aged about 45 /"’ years S/o— Jhadhuram Kurrey Caste Satnami ( Defendant r1945) Chote Kurnar Kurrey Aged about 35 / years S/o— uhadhuram Kurrey Caste Satnaml ( Defendant no 6) //dMal‘. / / V) Ashok Kumar Kurrey Aged about 3O years S/O Jhadhuram Kurrey Caste Satnami (Qgaiendant naJJ K 10) Chote S/o Jhadhuram 1a1 Kurrey Kurrey Aged about Caste‘Satnami 71 yeas (Qg£gndant Respondent Chilhati Tahsil n0. no. 8) & 7 to District 10 R/ Bilaspaur o— Village a ‘ (0G,) / 11) State of Chhattisgarh , through Collector Bilaspur (C.G‘.) (Qgiegdant npt9) » K ICLE 226/227 CONSTrrUTION OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ART INDIA. 1‘ W? No m WW €332/W 3Wm (W) “200 31mm 111% anéa mm£rmm $Wanaat 9.11.2005 Shri D.P. singh, Advoca‘h: for fhe peTiT§onen Hedrd. By This wr‘iT pe‘l‘ifion undar" Ar+icle 226/227 sf f'ne Cons‘rifui’ion of India fhe pe'fi‘l’ioner §1as quesfioned The !egcdi+y, proprhz’ry and correcrness of fhe ordér' duTed 3.9.2005 passed by learned 9"“ Addifional Dis‘rricf Judge (FTC), Bimspur‘ in Civil Suh‘ N0.14A/2005 whereby leamed Addifional Disfric? Judge has rejeb‘fed fhe appiicafion (1A. No.8) fiie’d cin behalf of The' peTiTioner herein for exfension cf iime ‘i‘o T’iie wri‘i" days. Brief fads necessary far dispasal of ‘ihis wri‘i pefi'rion are fha‘i‘ Fiied a suif for specific performance of r herein and his +hree sis?ers and four of o‘iher‘defendan'rs has already been 1e pe‘i’ifioner herein failed To file fher Order 3 Rule 1 of *rhe CPC. Thé s‘iipulafed period as confempla‘l'ed under ‘ion of fime on ‘l’he ground fha'f The pefifioner is men‘rally‘ chalien ed person and he does no? undersfand fhe cour'r's procedure, fher fore, g fime be exfended fo file The wriffen s‘l'a'iemen‘f. 'en s‘ia‘iemenf beyond The period of 9G responden’r Nos.i +0 3 herein con-freer againsf The pefiiione broihers. Wrih‘en sfa'i‘emen‘i faken on record, however' ’ri wriffen sfafemen‘i wi+hin The :refore, an applicafion was moved by The pefifioner herein for exfen SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 ./ x mmqi$ ...‘.......................... . ...... E20 msrmmfm) ammmanw Mum-(##mm ’ v7; $Wanés1 On The o'rher hand, cm applicafion (IA. No.5) Was filed on behalf o'f ‘i’he piain'fiffs for no? ‘i'aking We wri‘H’en smfemem’ of ‘Hqe pefi'rioner' herein on record. Learned Addi‘fional Disfri :1‘ Judge af‘rer‘ hearing The counse! for boTh The parfie$ in fhe ma+’rer rejected fhe uppiiccd’ion filed by lhe. pe’ri’rionar herein far exfension of Time on fhe ground fha‘r fhe pel'i‘l’ioner has nol' filer} any ef claviT in suppor? of his applical'ion for esmblishing ’rhe ground flna‘r he is menl’ally challenged persan and does nof undersfond The Courf’S pro eedings’. Fur'rher ground men‘l'ioned by leorned’Addi‘lional Dis'rricl’ Ju ge is “rho? no medical ceriifico‘i’e has been filed To ‘i‘he effect 'i'h ‘l’ The pefifioner herein is men’mlly challenged person. I have heard learned cou sel for The pei‘i‘l‘ioner. h Learned counsel for e peiil‘ioner submif’red ‘l'haf The pei’ifioner is an iili‘l‘era‘re pers n and does noi’ undersi’and ihe Cour‘i's proceeding, +herefore, learne Addifionol Disiricf Judge oughf +0 have exfended 1'he iime by 1 days, as The wriT'i’en sfa'iemeni’ has already been fiied by delay of 6 days. Having heard learned co nsel for ihe pefi‘iioner, I have perused ihe pefiiion and imougned orde . order VIII Quiz 1 af ih crc envisages om; " SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 0 f i W mqi$ 11120 maw (W) m ’ mmanéer mm¢wm hi3 aawwer a “7 defendanf shll, wifhi'r; Mirfy days rom Me afe of service summons an him, pre'nf a d 0‘ se ' wriffen sfcn‘emeni‘ hr's' defence: Pmvid 7‘h whe The dedanf fails fa fil fhe wriffyn sf enf wimm 'f/ie 5adperiod of firfy days: e sh be a/iawed fa fi/e fhe same on su afher day, as ay b specified by fhe Coum‘, or reasons fa be ecarded in wrifrhg, uf wich f r b h J ska/7 no? be lafer n ninefy days from 72 dare o sevi of summo ” #3 a f c f ed af re fen e a em i h h a I ch m e a # f rce n ’The H'bie Apex Cour fe mafwr of Kaiias V. Nanhku and a‘i'rs reported in 205 R 5€W 2346 has heid fT fhe provisions f rer II} bei a procedural law fhe Time can be exteded fo filing wri’rTen femen‘r, however, same sh!d be exfened by way 0f an excep'r for resons +0 be assigned by ‘i‘e defendam and also b laced o reco in wriiing. he grounds which were faken b fhe pefi‘iioner ein for exiension of Time as 'ihof he is menToHy caenged pers and he does ne’l’ uerstand The legai proceedin, Therefore, iime exiended, bu‘l' The pe‘iifer herein foile 1"0 fil any medical cer'i ca‘l'e in order 1’0 estabsh tha e is mentally challenged person. As or as the question oi: his illiteracy is concerned, he has engaged 't counsel, who was aware of all the provisions, therefore, the. ill‘terocy, looking 'to the facis and circomstances of the present ase, cannoi be taken as a ground for SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 0 on ? n h h he 0 I ha o Od V: n n r s a ou d i n a h e p n rd T y h r w hll o nd gs b ion d e i i li t h h ‘ 4;) V mawm mumsmmim gamma ma “~1- mw¢-mm ’ aiwam Wmqf$ ...- W200 3mm (W) Roshan/- N\\ {here is nofhing on record which shows axTenSisn of fime. Momovar, approached we counsel for making appearance on his behalf and {or filing wrh‘fen sm'remen‘r, fher'efere, fhe reasons mem‘ioned by kmmed Trial Cour? for rejecfirig The appliccdion far- ex‘rensicm of ‘ri me are izgai & correc‘f and if cannc‘r be said 'i'ha‘r +he rewons assignec by The “rriai Caur‘r are perverse in any way. As such, fhe peii‘rioner has no‘f been abie Te make ou'r a case fo‘r‘ infer‘ference by ‘i’his‘Cour'r unfier' Arficle 227 of fhe Cons‘rii'ufion 01" India invoking exfmordinary 'fhm‘ when *H'Ie pe’ri‘rioner ijurisdicfion, as has been held by The Hon'ble Apex Cour-1' in‘The ma‘iier- of Surya Devi Raiiv Ran: Chanda” Ras- é; m reporied in JT 200i; (53 5c 465. In fhe Pesui‘r, 'i‘he pe'ii’rion of The pe‘fi‘rioner‘ deserves f0 be i dismissed and if is, acco'rdingiir, dismissed. Consequenfly, M.(W.)P. sfand disposed of. Noi4275/05 & IA. No.915§/O5 else Sd/— L.C.Bhadoo Judge E2005 - 20,000 \v" i