c\ f^\ o ^l c\' ^ '^SfftK?s^ ^ ^ .^' -- •-:^ .SlK '£>< *•* <n '*^ •"•^ '~1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [C] N0. 2 ZT^/207 fS.B.] PETITIONER :- ^' Santosh Kumar son of Chandra Shekhar ..•'",^ Pandey, aged about 29 years, R/o ••'* Chantidih Chowk, Tahsil 85 District r^S^Si^ BUaspur[C.G.]. ~^>i ^:^..-< '^^1_- diiESPONDENTS DEFENDANT VERSUS y 1] Shivkali, aged 85 years, Wd/o Girdhari Kashyap. 2] Dilip aged 45 yeas, S/o Girdhari Kashyap 3] Rajendra, aged about 37 years, S/o Girdhari Kashyap 4] Pradeep, aged 32 years, S/o Girdhari Kashyap 5] Satish, aged 29 years, S/o Girdhari Kashyap. ^-'6] Ramesh aged 26 years, S/o Girdhari Kashyap. All are resident of near Ajeet Hotel, TeUpara, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District BUaspur [C.G.]. PLAINTIFFS WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P. (c) No. 2276/2007 Santosh Kumar Versus Shivkali and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRIN.K. AGARWAL, J PRESENT:- Shri Malay Bhaduri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Ahmad Hussain, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (11-3-2011) 1. Instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality and propriety of the order dated 27-11-2006 passed by 9ih Additional District Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 66-A/2005 whereby the review petition prefen-ed by the petitioner is dismissed. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell as projected by the petitioner are that in a suit filed by the respondents the petitioner did not file his written statement within a period of 90 days. The trial Court dismissed the application for extension of time for filing written statement on the ground that limitation for filing written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is 90 days. Review petition filed against the above order was also dismissed vide impugned order. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned. 4. It appears, along with review petition, the petitioner had also filed written statement before the trial court. The trial court should have decided'the application under Section 151 of the Code filed by the petitioner on its own merit. The provision contained in Order 8 Rule 1 of C.P.C. are directory in nature and not mandatory as held by the ^ A, ' 't«is- 'T'..^' ••S-^Js'^' 5. 6. Supreme Court. Thus the order rejecting the prayer for extension of time for filing written statement holding the provision as mandatory is bad and not sustainable in law. Further the right of filing written statement is a valuable right. The petitioner has already filed written statement along with review petition and therefore, the order impugned is set aside and instead, it is directed that the trial court shall take the written statement filed by the petitioner on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- payable to the respondent. Since \t is an old suit, it is expected that the trial court shall decide the matter expeditiously. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 1 1-4-2011. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^