HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON (227 ) No.77/2011 7 ^---{ RESPONDENTS 1 2 4 Reshamlal, S/o Anant, R/o Village Bharewapuran, Tahsil Pandariya, District l^birdham (C.G.) yersus Panchuram, S/o Keshna Satnami Bharatdutt, S/o Jagjivram Bhasker, Surendraprasad, S/o Netram Nos.1-3 r/o village Kanwaipur Priya S/o Chikut, r/o vittage Dhoiakapa Radheshyam S/o Udhodas R/o Village Devgadhiya Ramdas, S/o Swaroop R/o Village Khaira Tuisi Nos.1-6, All residents of Tahsil Pandariya, District tebirdham (c.G.) D.R. Patel, Amin, Water Resources Division No.3, Sahaspur Lohara Jagdishram Sahu, Shikshakarmi Grade-1 High School Ksheerbandha, Tahsil S.Lohara Babulal, Dewangan, Head Master, Govt. Middle School Rajanavagaon, Tahsil Bodla 10 Shri A.K.Bhoi, Tahsildar and Election Officer, Panchayat Election, Pandariya Municipal Corporation Korba, District Korba.(c.G.) 11 Gendtal S/o Amirdas Satnami, r/o Village Kanwalpur 12 Jagjivan S/o Kanhaiya 13 Nareshkumar S/o Devchand 14 Niranjan, S/o Holiram 15 Rajkumar,S/o Ramia! Patre, 8 9 .x' Bilirei ^T WRiT PETITION (227 ) No.77/2011 ^^ 16 Salikram S/o Jethuram Respondents 7 to 9 & 11-16 a!l residents of Village Devghadiya, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) WRIT PETITIQN UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IMDiA Mr. Alok Bakshi, Counsei for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Tekam, Counsel for respondent No.1 ORAL ORDER (S9.02.2011) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner - Reshamlal has filed this petitlon chaltenging validity of order dated 26.04.2010 passed by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition No.01 A 58/2009-2010, whereby, the Tribunal has closed the right of the petitioner to file written statement. The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Devgadhiya, Tehsil Pandariya District Kabirdham (C.G.). His election was called in question by respondent No.1 by fiting an election petition before the Specified Officer/Sub Divisional Officer, Pandariya. The said Election Petition was fited on 09.03.2010. After issuance of the notice, the petitioner caused his appearance and prayed for time to file written statement on 30.03.2010. The matter was adjourned granting time to the petitioner. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 12.04.2010 and on the said date, again, the petitioner prayed for time, which was granted and then, on 26.04.2010, when the petitioner again prayed for time to fi!e his vi/ritten statement, the same was refused and right •-'"•ir" t.^. WRIT PETITION {227 ) No.77/2011 • ^ to file written statement was closed by the Election Tribunal/Specified Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable vide Rule 11 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995") for deciding the Election Petition filed under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. He submits that the right to file written statement has been closed even before expiry of the duration of extending period as provided under Order 8 Rute 1 C.P.C (90 days). His submission is that when the impugned order is examined in light of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C., the same cannot be sustained, therefore, the impugned order may be set aslde. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.l/election petitioner opposes these arguments. Reply on behalf of respondent No.1 has been filed. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also peRised the records of the election petition. Rute 11 of the Rules, 1995 provides that subject to the provisions of these rules, every election petition shall be enquired into by the specified officer as nearly, as may be, in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to the trial of suits.This makes it ctear that the provisions of C.P.C. are made applicable for the decision of the Election Petition fited under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. WRiT PETITION (227 l No.77/2011 37 Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. provides that the defendant shals, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence : provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said periodof thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified bythe Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. . Apart from the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C., there is no restriction in Order 8 that after expiry of 90 days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. This is what the Supreme Court held in Salem Acfvocate Sar Associatlon. T.N.-Vs.-Union of Indla 6 SCC 344. In the present case, the Election Petition itself was filed on 09.03.2010 and notices were issued and the date of appearance was fixed on 30.03.2010 and thereafter, adjournments were granted to file written statement and right to fite the written-statement was closed within a period of about 47 days. It appears that the Tribunal did not exercise its discretion to extend the time on the prayer of the petitioner and passed the impugned order without adverting to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 26.04.2010 passed by the Election Tribunat as atso the order passed by the Cotlectorate on 27.12.2010 cannot be sustained and both deserve to be quashed. Accordingty, the writ petition is allowed and the ^ impugned order dated 26.04.201 O passed by the Election h»,tisu:i^;.s3 WRIT PETITION (227 ) No.77/2011 -S» 3,§ Tribunal and the order dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Collector vide Revenue Case (Revision) No.09 A- 58/2009-2010 are hereby quashed. The petitioner is granted a month's time from today to flle written statement before the Election Tribunai, which shall be accepted by the Tribunal and the Tribunat thereafter shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with !aw. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost(s). —- Sd/- SunilKumarSmha Judge sdyna i;tlF!^"—HT