IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CC.G.1 WRIT PETITION (227) N0. f^O QF 2010 'SINIa-L.fc BENCH PETITIONER Defendant No. 6 A s»,\^ ^y ^^,1^--^'S^ CY^S ^:-^I^S^- v'g^'"'.l..^"l-;-" Satyendra, S/o Lalji Chandravanshi, aged about 25 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Village Bitkulikala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ^\\ * »t.e RESPONDENTS Plaintiff ! No. 1 tNo. 2 it No.3 VERSUS 1. ^ Najru, aged about 74 years, S/o Amar Singh Stanami, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village Bitkulikala, Tahsil Kawardha, District kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Ramji, aged about 52 years, S/o Sunder Singh Chandravanshi, Occupation - Agriculturist, R/o Village Bitkulikala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3. " Shyam Sunder Pathak, aged about 55 years, S/o Ayodhya Prasad Pathak, Advocate, R/o Kachhari Para, Kawardha, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4. Santosh, aged about 30 years, S/o Dani Chandravanshi; IN THE HON'E WP PETITIONER Defendant Nc •(*l- \^ Y -•AS'^. ^A'"'^\- *d .A.^' RESPONDE^ Plaintiff ,,tp^r -yAj^ -"'.' c.'^~ a' .^^' 1L rvl Mv \>' ^ c, d, Sagni »ai, a§ed abeut &.«! ysars, W/» Sashtsaa aged abeut 25 years, W/@ » ai» aged afeeut 80 years, wd/®NajCT >hanesh Ku.aar, agsd aiaeut 1S years, S/9 NajaTU «u SataamA, ag"d abeut 9 years, s/®Najru •Satnaml, Serial N©. f & g are minor through their guard&an mather iShanmat Sai. ?N/®Najsu S. All the abeve are Resident ®fWard N©.6, TahsU.Kawa'rdha, Oistrj.et KaMrdham (G.S.) KfSsisS-S"-— Defendant No. 4 Defendant No. 5 Defendant No. 6 Defendant No. 7 Defendant No. 8 Defendant No. 9 (S) 5. Smt. Shail Kumari, aged about 40 years, W/o Prakash Chandravanshi; 6. Naresh, aged about 42 years, S/o Muniram Chandravanshi, Advocate; 7. Satish, aged about 25 years, S/o Lalji Chandravanshi; 8. Aakash, aged about 22 years, S/o Prakash Chandravanshi; 9. Smt. Vidya, aged about 50 years, W/o Lalji Chandravanshi. Respondent No. 4 to 9 are Agriculturist, R/o Village Bitkulikala, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 10. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Collector, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) :{ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA ^""'^ .,:.».'dii;i ,'y .^" 1 tifyw^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR fendant Sagni Bai and others. Piaintiffs WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDiA ISinGie Bench: Hon'ble Shri ISi.K. Aaarwal, J.l t : Shri P.P. Sahu, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Sameer Singh, counse! for respondents No. Shri Vivek Singhal, counsel on behalf of Shri N.S. Dhurandhar, counsei for respondents No.2 to 9. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.10. ORAL ORDER (Passed OR04th day of February, 2011) The petitioner's application under Order 1 Rute 10 or' Code of Civil Procedure was atlowed on 30-11-2009 and the matter was fixed for filing of his written statement on 03-12- 2009. The matter was again adjourned for 11-12-2009 for petitioner's written statement. On 11-12-2009, the petitioner's for grant of further time to file written sfatement vvas and hi's right to file written statement was closed. this petition. 2. I have heard tearned counsei for the partles. 3. Within a period of 11 days from the date when the petitioner vi/as permltted to be added in the suit as defendant, She right to file written statement was closed. !n law, petitioner was entitled to fife.vi/ritten statement at least within a period of 30 days. Thus, the order impugned was passed in clear vioSation of provlsions contained in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. 3^^ 1:« S i.?.. >"••• .. -- ..... ^.j t'%, '^......•/;' ^ Kw Therefore, the order being not sustainable in law desen/es to be and Is hereby set aside. The petitioner is permltted to file v/ritten statement in the suit within a period of one month from today and the learned Triai Court shail proceed to dispose ofthe suif thereafter, In accordance with iaw. 4. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge ^Sg^^S^