N' ill INYHEm<;m^Ol ^OFJUDI€Al^^ WR]:T!PE¥ntiONf:2271IIO. /'2009 P'iBTmONERiS; (Defendant no. t ^2}'.\:^ ' :^::-.:'^ i^ M^^M ., ••'.j.'y^y-''.^ .c^y 4/My/ : 1.^^^ ^ !(Rtaintiffis^ (Defengaat no^ 3) 1. Balram Singh, S/Q Gend ^h, agedlabout 85 years, Occup^ion; —A^CT^^ R/Q ViUage-Giyra, ^ Tel-isU- Tilada,DistrictRaipur(C.G). S, Mukuhd Smgti S^G Balrain Singh,agedat)out50:yea:rs, •Qceupatioh , -AgriCujltyiist, R^O Village|Gujra, Tehsil- ; Tila^ .Yogendi-ajSinglx;::S^©^E!alra|ri ^,§iHgIi,!^e'cl^«l3©utl|.6§:^yeg|gs,; ..iffi?.'^f.^:'iip':^:4;;/.?:KiKi::^$ l^ieeupatmn. I.: i' •—^rigHltunSjt,] ^fQ^ Village-©ujra,|^Telisia- Tilad^Di^ctRaipl (G.G)l N^iliiTa Singh'S/<3^Bal(-siJ|a ^SmghL;^agGCflli:iout',^55;^5t€£trs^ •:Oecu@a:Son^,j,: -Agnculti.lnst, ,;R/0^1;'Villa^e-Grl;tjra$l;i'^q*ellsa- Tilad^; ^istnef Rail:n4r (C.G)| | ;^urenMra.;iStn^h:S/QhElalr£(na. Singh, agedj atiout ;50;,yiea^,i Q^^atiQn ^ ] --Agnt^tu^ ^R/Q^;.:it.yma^-Gu]ra,iii.:'Tetoisi|- Tilajaaj,,E)i§tfiGt;Raii3Hrt(C.Cr)i| !State.y,:..M.;'VI',:Chh^sg^ :'tMFO^gbX3olleGtor,iRaii)u;E-,;;jil.| l^! ^] •? ;:'J .^•';; :.ll: ';r!'i;.. ',':•. i't- ^&KSs^^y-ii' is' K A- WmTPETni[@ irNDE;RARTlGU;2^227 OFTraiE CONSTITirHONOFlNDlA n»n'pTtiTTr * ncs ftn 'PUB' nB'TT'nTrtiu'Bioo.__ ^"^ ^wm*{, wnl+i're, fsiMi'Hy wmwrt»^^-m1-- 3t!^?I 'f^V C^Sy^ff) Wff 3H^T ^iNiiab iffiiwBftaan^i ^riwfrt•qpmf<[ f^'Zt TfiR^R ^i'affiww^! S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Ag^rwal ;.uo.. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Adv^cate for the petitioners. Lbwver for the State, This petition is directed aga^nst the order dated 09.04.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, T| whereby, the application of the pe^ fifieen davs time to file written statehient has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case ar by the respondents on 11.04.2Q08. Notices were issued on 17.04.2008 Mid the petrtioners/defe4 03.05.2008. On 18,06.08, the p< application under Section 151 of| Ida in Civil Suit No. 40 A/08, itioners/defendants for grant of -?-1^^-i- thal, a civii suit was instituted idants made their appearance on titioners/defendante moved - an CPC that plaint does contain schedule. Thereafter plaintiff mov^d an application-.for pemiission |to annex schedule alongwith the pl^int vvhich was allowed by trial |court vide order dated 05.11.08 and !tfaereafter, the trial court granted |time to the petitioners/defendants tcf file their written statement and the matter was fixed on 06.12.20p8. The petitioners/defendants 1 again moved an application under Prder 7 Rule 11 of CPC which 1 jwas dismissed by the trial court dn 05.03.09 and the matter was ! fixed for filing ofwritten statement ^fpetitioners/defendants. .•^"i'^ii'^ra^t^n^—;-'s/95—-}i /200ft—1-00OlK;. ll-.l :";*^"^^i^'^;.: ^t<.^-.',.^;^1 ^ '^WM^, '^ftWTS, foRTTWp: ^(^>^ ^3\ Wi 200^ '^Erf^^f'f '^s^^ 'f^St '<f^^i< ^TsrRnail^T tliiat On 09.04.2009, the application for grant of fifteeji statement on the ground defendants/petitioners became uj that date. The said application the ground that in by the petitioners and also mor^ the date of receipt of summons this petition. perused the records. In my con peti|ioners/defendante again moved an days time to file their written due to some accident, the faable to file its written statement on |was dismissed by the trial court on support ofapcjlication, no document has been filed than 90 days has been lapsed from |in the suit by the petitibner. Hsnce I have heard learned coijinsel appearing for the petitioners, sidered opinion, looking to the facts situation of the case, the triai ^ourt ought to have granted fifteen days time to the petitioners to file their written statement. Right to file written statement is a valuayie right and trial court ought to have directed to submit the medical c^rtificate in support of such accident in place ofdismissing the appli^ation. Moreover, it would have been in the interest ofeariy disposal]ofthe suit also. The plaintiffcould have been compensated by awaijding costs. Therefore, the order passjed by the trial court deserves to be and is accordingly quashed,] and it is directed that if the petitioners/defendants herein pajys Rs, 500/- as costs to the plaintiffs .; 1 i^n<\s—.1nqjic^ Sai a-HG—78 Sfl^I^lf^fe ^ii sii^i'ailite Sahu ^1*(CTT ShMTcfi T^ ^i^ici^, Otil't-i'is, fsKniyy _v).te^>.......^s.l. •^200 311^1 ~^V ('yf^^l) l^nw ^ifOT 3f^i ^ and submits their written st today, then the trial court shall statement in the court and thereafter decide the suit in accordance withl herein feel some grievance thdn appropriate application before this| With the above observati<|>n allowed and the order dated 09.( costs. +wfct4)-l lWR(f'? 1^CTt <fat4i< ^sjfin aii^i .(:atemeat within fifteen days from Ipermit them to file their written the trial court shall proceed to |law. However, ifthe respondents i^a. they are at libeity to move lcourt. and direction this petition is 0-11.2009 is quashed. No order asto Sdi- i - :- N.K.Agarwal i^ Judge i