@smow 3mm- “R BEFOLRE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION UZA 227 No. ' g gg a l 2011 PETITIONERS: Smt. Kawaljeet aur, W/o Satpal Singh Muchhal Aged about 32 years, Satpal Singh Muchhal, S/o Mehar Singh, Aged about 35 years, Both Petitioners No. 1 to 2 are R/o Tamerpara, Takhatpur, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Biiaspur, C.G. (Defendants No. 1 &'2 ) VS ERSU REspoNDEN'r Jashpai Singh S/o Mehar Singh Muchhai Aged about 39 Years R/O Bajrang Nagar, Takhatpur, Tehsii Takhatpur, District Biiaspur, C.G. ( Plaintiff) R WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN OF INDIA. & K X 5L V\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 340 of201 l WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF TI-E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) I Present : Shri’Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioners. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21.01.201 1) Legality and propn'etary ofthe order dated 08.10.2010, passed by the IVth Civil Judge, Class—I, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 3- B/l 0, whereby the written statement med by the petitioners was not admitted in the case, is under assail in the insmnt petition. 2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioners are that: summons were served upon the petitioners on 25.05 2010 and the case was Exed for hearing on 17.06.2010. The case was adjoumed on 06.07.10, 22.07.10 and on 11.08.10. On these days, the petitioners could not me written statement, however, they filed the same on 07.09.10 i.e. after 102 days nom the date of service of summons. 3. The respondent med an application before the court and prayed that written statement filed by the petitioners be not PETITIONERS : Smt. Kawaljeet Kaur & Another Versus RESPONDENT : Jashpal Singh 2 g / 3’, admitted on the ground that the same has not been med within the stipulated period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC nor any prayer has been made for grant of time to flle written statement. The trial court, in view of provisions contained in Order 8 Rule l of CPC, holding that since the written statement has not been within the maximum period of 90 days and also the petitioners failed to file any application for grant of time for hling written statement, dismissed the said application. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned. Although it is true that the petitioners have not filed any application for grant of time to file written statement assigning any cogent reasons, but it is also true that right to hle statement is valuable right and the petitioners have also filed the written statement on 07.09.2010, considering the legal proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in ease of Sambhaji & others v. Gangabai & othersl wherein it has been held that Order 8 Rule l of CPC are not mandatory and are directory, the trial court ought to have admitted the written statement med by the petitioners by imposing some costs upon him. ‘2oos(r7)scc 117 £0 Therefore, the petition is allowed and it is directed that on payment of cost of Rs, 500/— payable to the respondent, the ritten statement shall be taken on record and thereatter shaH proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In case, the other party is aggrieved, he is nee to move an appropriate application. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge w