2025:JHHC:22413 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.264 of 2022 Dineshwari Sahay, S/o Late Baijnath Sahay, R/o Village- Sahijana, PO- Garhwa, PS- Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1(a). Amit Kumar Verma, S/o Late Rakesh Kumar Verma 1(b). Shivam Kumar Verma, S/o Late Rakesh Kumar Verma 1(c). Sheema Kumari, D/o Late Late Rakesh Kumar Verma . 1(d). Reema Kumari, D/o Late Rakesh Kumar Verma 1(e). Neema Kumari, D/o Late Rakesh Kumar Verma All R/o Village- Sahijana, PO- Garhwa, PS- Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand. 2. Santosh Kumar Verma, S/o Late Laxmikant Verma, R/o Village- Sahijana, PO- Garhwa, PS- Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the O. P(s). : Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate Mr. Brij Mohan Mishra, Advocate …... 07/ 07.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Notice is declared to be validly served upon the substituted legal heirs of Opp. Party No.1. 2. Petitioner is the defendant and is aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2020 passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division-II, Garhwa, in Title Suit No.14 of 2015 by which the written statement filed by the defendant has been rejected being barred by limitation. 3. The written statement was filed after delay of 267 days and the delay was refused to be condoned by the learned Trial Court. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay was not intentional and the defendant was suffering from fever and had gone outside in connection with his treatment, therefore, the relevant documents could not be arranged within the stipulated time 5. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party submits that the petitioner/defendant was required to submit the written statement within 90 days, but the same has been filed after such an inordinate delay without any cogent reason. 2025:JHHC:22413 ) 2 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, law on this point has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 344 whereby the statutory period is directory in nature and injunction can be granted for the ends of justice depending upon the facts of the case. 7. Considering the grounds taken, this Court is of the view that the leave for filing of the written statement needs to be allowed for the ends of substantive justice subject to payment of cost of Rs 5000/- (Ruppes Five Thousand) to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the instant CMP stands allowed. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-