I-HC—78 3T1^t ^t R»li<=b Wff 3TT^T5FRN? <-, 's'^r ^II^M^ ^Ti1<-i^j<o, f^Kni^y —.....Lu.:.&.:....ri(?..-.; WlWgWW""""""""""""" """""""""""'^,200 3TI^T TPRR' (<iG*t3Q<^) ^w^R tif^a 3TT^r PETTTIONER Bal Kj.ishna, S/'o Asha Raiii Chaiidrakar, aged ^.bout 66 years, R/o vlllage Santra, Tahsi} Patan, Distt. Dm-g (CG) Versiss RESPONDENT Smt. Bhar^ viiiag^ (CG) WKlT^^TlTlOX?%i?KRjV£TACLK2270FrHE nnw?2/TT SB; 8-7-2008 Shri N.S. Dhuraiidhaj Shii B. R. Ghosh, Ad-v 'l'ms petition is du'ect passed in Civil Suit No Additional Distiict Judge, tilmg written statement un sarne was filed beyond the Leanied counsel foi provision under Order 8 I instant case, the written however, the saine was no1 the respondent oniy on tlie cbl^t<rl41<1 *iM<yif ^f'fe1^t<R»it^i< ^3Tfim3TT^T Vedwati, W/o Raia Ivrishna .dwaj, aged about 57 years, R/o ; Saiitm, Talisil Patan, Distt. Durg 'UTION QF im?LA J. 1-, Advocate, for me petitioner. |ocat.e for the respondent. fed agaiiist the order dated 9-3-2005 49-B/2004 whereby leanied 1st |Durg has closed the opportunity of ^der Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. as tlie t)eri.od of 90 days, tlie petitioner submits mat me ^uie 1 of C.P.C. is du'ecton.7. In tlie statement was liled on 9-3-2005, taken on record on the objection of 1 gi'ound that the same has been filed 3TT^T ^t ^Jch WT 3TT^T sh*ll<!t» v 'S^T ^ii'i'iKrt^, ^•al^^Ko, I®IC'IH^< ..^.:.£:..l^?.:..^S?.3./'.0^ 'HPIW^W^ "^^^^^^^^^^^"^^ ^ ^T^?T Tra^ ( ^qi^^) ITRTTW^f^T^n^T after me period of 90 days. statement could be taken d cost. Un tlie ottier nancl, m'gues mat tliougn ttie pro\| is not mandaton7, even Court that he was preven^ written sT.atenieiit. Having heai'd the leai) pei~used the impugaed or\ wntten statement is on defendant, iii the consideil Court ousht to have taken t| miposiug suitaDle luie, In the result, the petij is set aside. 'l'ne wntten defendmit. is directed to Ij paying cost of Rs, 1,000/-. reccjrd Gr>Mt<ri<fl»i^W^f ^f feT3i"^R?R ^'3TfiP:T3TI^T |He fuilher submits fiiat the written |n record by miposmg some suitable (eai'ned counsel lor ttie respondent lision under Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. fh(tn the petitioner should satisfy the jed by sufficient cause in filmg tlie |ned counsei for the parties, having ller, considermg the fact that the as the sanie has been flted bv tiie led opmion ot tms Court, me tnal ttie writteii statenient on record after t:ion is ailowed. The mipugned order |statement filed by the petitioner/ ^e taken ou record on petitioner's Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 'STra^T ^T.g^m?!^, ;<{^J^Hc< —FS/197—3/2008 —40,000.