VIdNI 30 NOU.fLLLLSNOO SHi so LZZ, a^^Il·av ^aaNn NOLLI13J iraM .^" (M0{aq irnoo ajojsq 8-0N. laspuodss-a) ("0"3) vdvasvQ - jiSfuEf -(SIQ BdmBq3 - jigfuBf jopaipo 3i.il - :qgnojqj, 'qjBSsinBipojo sms ('O'D) ^durcq^ jiSfuef -'ISTQ B-lEqqBQ --ipl is ETOqj. ijBji-a-sSqnA 'nqrs piremAiBs^uqs 3 ^ o/S/^ ( dJIUMW^) sjesK i7g ^noqB sgB uiereini •^ : SJJMaONOdSa^ \ 5^** snsjSA ("0"3) ^diircq3 - JiSftref -"BSIQ 'BJEitqiiQ - qBj, -y Eireqj, 'uejra sSqHA -o/y: 3JE /. 01 ^ "OU S.I3HOIIIPJ n JOlBAppO 'SJBSA gg-p3§B TIB3J. - ISBO pnBUB^sqs o/S ure-[P99 "^A JOlBAppO 'SJBSA 8g-p3§B nB3X- ^S1a3 piiBUKtBaqg- o/s lUBjBqnucjsi -9^ JO^Appo 'sjesA 6^ }noqE p3§B qgiqg irepiieuAiqs uqg o/§ puBUBJiH •g JoiBAiipo 'sjeaX 9(7 inoqi3 psSB B^UBI[§Vip^asjBj uq§o/ §jBAqs35[i[-|je-3 •f \} -• -~ •- • •• "^ jo^Aiiino 'sjcaX 5(7 inoqB p3§E ^^J9 liXueqgv ipBuqsjiij uqs o/s fej(U3q3 ^' ^s^-' joiEAppo 'sjesA ^g ^noqc ps§B ij\' V' BAtreq§vq^uqs^e^ uqs O/Q o/s UEpmuiEf •^ loysAi^TK) 'sjcaA gg inoqB p9§EBAjeqgv (SlN3GUS[3daCl) qiBuqsjBd uqs o/s PBSCTJ aEprimqg^^: S^3N;OI1I13<I 800Z7,}^\j -ONUrd-M .,<<^^"" 4^S-^ *6i< widsv^a iv iravosLiivHHO awiLVDianrjo i^noo HOIH 3Hi NI i@S S^g^l&S; i££S^Jgi5^ I^B^S?^^^t^4^^ :a.. '^&fx^ o eETmoNEp COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BSLASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'faie Shri Justice Prastisnt KumarMjshra Petition (Ci No.396 / 2008 Rashunandan Prasad and othws, Versus RESPONDENT-S Tularam and another. Shri Vijay K. Deshmukh, counsel for uie petitsoners. Shri Pushpendra Patei. counsei for raspondent N&-1. Shri Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the S{ate/rsst»ndentNo.z. ARTiCLE 227 OF THE CONSTSTUTSON QF INDiA (22.11.2Q10) The petitioneis hav®calSsd in question the Otdei passed by the triaf C-ourt reiuslng to admit the WTitten Siatement and at the sarne tin'ie ciosing then evidenc®. The piaintnfe moved an application f&r closing the defendants right to fite written statement on the grouriu that even after expiry of 90 days frorn uie date of servics of surnmons the defendants havs falisd to fiie thstr written staternent, therefore 816 defendante rnay not be permitted to fil^ wrltton st§t^rfi@nt. (2) The paiitlonersfdefendante ffled flisir wrttten stai8m8Rt and have stated in reply to ttie piairstiHS appiiration under Oroer 8 Ruie 1 of C.P.C. that the iriatter was eariiw pending in the Court of Civii Judgs Class — i, Sakti and ^ iaw'yer engaged by yiern was appearing in the Court, however after estabiishrnent of iink Court at Dabhara ttie counsei er^aged by thsrn at Salul CQUKJ not attsnd the hearing and frie petitioriws had to appoirn a new Advocate and after rnaking riecessary preparation the 'wfitten staten'ieni was prepared and subrnltted on 07/09/2007. It was submitte',1 that the delay is \ ~;\v.. .<y ^- 'i^^^s bonaiide and has occ-aslonwi on ac'courn of transfer 01 suit from Sakti C-ourt to the riewty cunstitutsd Court at Dabhara. (3) Leamed triai Court has observeu that wen before transfer of the case the uwenuants were reguiariy a earing anu yst Wtitten statwnent was not fiied anu that the lawyere were appearing into D^hara Court also, therefore ine wnuen siaiemani cannoi c-e accepiea. (4) In the rnatter of Kaiissfi vs. f'sanfshii awi othws reported in (2005) SCC 480 the Hon'bie Suprems Court has heiu that the provision contained in Order 6 Ruie 1 of C.P.G. reqyiring fillng of written statement within 90 uays is directory not mandatory and that power of the Court to extend tiffle foi fiiing the wrltten staternent beyond the time schadui8d is iiot cornpiet&'y taken away and that the Court, for reasons to be assiyned by the defendants, snaii De srnpowereQ to exisrra tns time. (5) In the present case it is riot denied that the case was eariier F'snding al Saidl wtiich was later on fransfsrred to Ctebhara. Thus, tie put forth by tfie petitioners for Inabiiity to fite thesf written staternent 'within ttie scheuuisd time appears to be boriaBde arsd that not extWtdiny the tirne to fite written staterftent would occasiou faKure of justtee. (6) There is yet anouief siiegality In the trnpugned onler inasinuch s.s white considsring the piaintsffs appiicaBon under Order 8 Ruie 1 of C.P.C. the t.'ral Court has aiso clused the defendante riyht to leay svidence. Such an orusr couiu not have been passed because even the piaintiff has not commericsd his evidence anu frorn the impugneu order iteeif it couiu b& noted that ttie defendant No. 5 i.e. the State of Chhattisgarh has not be&n sereea' Vi'ith the sun'imons of the suit. ^lt;s;;t^ K- 5 ./ (7) For ali the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is ailowed and ttis petltioners wTitten statemerit is uirwted to be taken on record subjsct howaver to payrnent of cost of Rs.1 ,OQO,L to the piaintiff, te be paid befure the uial Court wifhiri eight waete frQm touay. Sd//- PrashantKumarMishra Judge ;-;iL--itySi^i**^^SS' ^l-jL^^3?W^31:3,'?»