HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram DIVISION BENCH HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV HON'BLE SHR! SUNSL! ; <rf>^- kj W« I.C.C.No.111of Defendant No.2 Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. At Krishi Mandi Premises, Kampa, Raipur: By - RK Katakwar, DM, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd., Presently Posted atRaigarh. Versus Defendant No. M/s Rungta Irrigation Ltd., Incorporated U/lndian Company Act, 1956: HO @ 101, Pragati Tower, 26 Rajendra Place, New Delhi: Branch @ Jai Gopal Saw Mill Compound, Krishi Mandi Road, 2. MP State A.qro Industries Deveiopment Corporation Ltd., Malviya Nagar, Bhopal. ApDlication for Modification of OD dated 31/11/2007 passed in WP(C) No.52/2007 Present: Shri Raja Sharma, leamed counsei for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.1. (13m March, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Heard learned counsel forthe parties. N ^ • 'c 2. The petitioner is seeking modification of the order dated 30-11-2007, passed in W.P.(C) No. 52/2007. 3. In W.P.(C) No. 52/2007, the following order was passed on 30-11-2007- "Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner may be allowed a week's time to file the written statement. Accordingly, in the iight of the above submissions, let the written statement be filed withln a week failing which the petitioner wilt have no chance to fiie the same. With this observation, writ petltion stands disposed of." 4. Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the submits that in compliance ofthe order dated 30-11-2007, though the written statement could not be flled wlthin a period of one week, the same has been filed on 20-12-2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the written statement on behalf of the petitioner who is defendant No.2 in the Civil Suit could not be filed within the stipulated period of one week as the certified copy of the order dated 30-11-2007 was suppiied to the petitioneron 13-12-2007. 5. Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.1 / plaintiff though dld not oppose the petitioner's prayer for extension of time for flllng the written statement, prayed that reasonable cost be imposed on the petitioner for the delay in filing the written statement. c j ?"f / 6. On due consideration, the petition is allow&Tand by modifying the order dated 30-11-2007 passed in W.P.(C)No.52/2007, it is directed that the Triat Court shall accept the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner on 20-12-2007 on the petitioner's paying cost of Rs.2,000/- to respondentNo.l/plaintiff._ 1=—~——— \ Sd/- ^'Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Subbu h