3IT^T ^PT Ri^Jcb WT 3?T^T ffi*ilct) A 7" ifc ^r; 755T ^q|^|<nq/ ^Tll^^Ko, f^<ni<4^< .^,.....U>...-.fc.....1±?.:.....-?o.'.^o *11<<^1 tb*ll<b ~ «1 3ff^T TT^^(<ic<fy<^) ^wiW ^f^n PETiTiONEK lUtslina, Bal aged T'alisillPatan Versus KBSPONDENT Smt. Bharas vulage (CG) WRiT PETTTION UNDBR ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTITlOTIQN QF !NDL& ITORAMISEKA, J, o 8-7-2008 Sm'i N.S. Dhurandhar, Sim B. R. Ghosh, Adv4 This petition is dii'ecte^i passed in CivU Suit No. Additional Disti'ict Judge, filmg written statement un(3e saiiie was tiled beyond tiie p^ Leanied counsel for provision under Order 8 Rt instaiit case, me wntteu iiowever, me saine was not the respondent only on the cbl^fd^'l Hl^df ^f ft^ <f^t^i< '^stRwsn^T shna, S/o Asha Ram Chmidrakm', bout 56 years, R/o village Santra, i, Distt. Dui'g (CG) Vedwati, W/o Raiii Ki'ishna .waj^ agcd about 57 ycars, R/o Santra, Talisil Patan, Distt. Dm^ Advocate, for Uie petitioner. tcate for me respondent. against the order dated 9-3-2005 50-B/2004 whereby leanied 1st Lpm'g has closed the opportui-uty of ^er Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. as me briod of90 days. the petitioner submits tliat tlie i|ile 1 of C.P.C. is dii'ectoiT. In tlie ^tatement was filed on 9-3-2005, jiaken on record on flie objection of di'ound that me saiiie has been filed STTO^T ^T ^u<l^,.<wi^|jc< —FS/T97—37200^-—4Q,OOG^ ;C—78 3T^t'^T f^TN? TT8TT 3TI^T 5r>*iw <'/ *11*1CTI «»HI«!t» '3^T ^i^iicn^, ©Til<i<i<o,f®i<ni-Hlj,< t^.P, Alo. ^l^/o^— TT9R"--"-"""-"--""""-""":-^200 3^TI^T 1q^T ( yif^^) T^TTW ^f?H 3iTT^T aft.er the period of 9Q day| statemeut couia De taM:eii| cost. Qn tiie ottier liandl argues that though the pr|: is uot mandatoi^, eveu tE Court that he was prevet wntten stateiiieut. Having heard the let peinsed the impugned wntten sta.tementis on ret defendant, ia the considl Court ought to have takeil imposing suitable fii-ie. In the result, the is set aside, T'he writtei|i defendaut is dirccfed to| paying cost ofRs. 1,000/-| <sM^(<n<fli WR^if "^ [k^<\ <r'i'^i< ^r^tRm^TT^T b. He further subniits that the written on record by imposiug some suitable learnea counsel tor tne respondent bvision under Order 8 Rule 1 of C.F\Q |ien the petitioner should satisfy the b.ted by sufficient cause m filiiig the |amed counsel for the parties, havin^ ^rder, considermg tlie tact tliat me t;ord as the sanie has been filed by the ^red opiniou of this Court, the trial tlie wntten statement on record atter p^titiou is ailowed. The mipugued order statenient tilecl by tlie petitioner/ be tsken on record on petitiouer's Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^