1 2025:CGHC:1708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No.228 of 2022 1 - Suresh Chandra Barediya S/o Late Jagdish Chandra Aged About 68 Years Caste Vaishya, Occupation Business, Medicine Seller (Baderiya Medical Stores) R/o Junapara Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dinesh Chandra Barediya S/o Late Jagdish Chandra Aged About 65 Years Caste Vaishya, Occupation Business, (Printing Press) R/o Bazarpara, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ashok Chandra Barediya S/o Late Jagdish Chandra Aged About 63 Years Caste Vaishya, Occupation Business, R/o Junapara Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Kaushilya W/o Late Agarsai Aged About 63 Years Occupation Housewife , R/o Village Telsara (Devnagar) Tahsil Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mahadev S/o Late Dhansai Aged About 48 Years Occupation Cultivator R/o Village Mahuapara , Kharbat, Police Station And Tehsil Baikunthpur , District Koriya Chhatitsgarh 3 - Janki D/o Dhansai Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mandalpara, Police Station And Tehsil Baikunthpur , District Koriya Chhatitsgarh 4 - Sushila D/o Late Dhansai Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bardar, Police Station And Tehsil Khadgawan , District Koriya Chhatitsgarh 5 - Krishnadevi D/o Late Dhansai Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Sonhat , Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat , District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 6 - Kanwal Sai S/o Late Moharsai Aged About 48 Years Occupation Service , R/o Bangladafai, Chhoti Bazar, Chirmiri, Police Station Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 7 - Chetan Kumar S/o Late Moharsai Aged About 43 Years Occupation Service , R/o Bangaldafai, Chhoti Bazar, Chrimiri, Police Station Chirmiri , Tahsil Khadgawan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 8 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector , District Koriya (Baikunthpur) Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioners/Defendants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Kumar Sharma, PL For Respective respondents : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. The petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 have filed this petition challenging the orders dated 07.09.2021 and 02.04.2022 passed by the learned Second Civil Judge, Class-I, Baikunthpur, District Koriya (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.12-A/2020 whereby the right of the petitioners to file written statement has been closed on the ground that the same was not filed within a period of 90 days from the date of service of summons. 2. Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that earlier the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 were proceeded ex parte on 07.09.2021. He would further submit that an application under Order 9 Rule 7 along with an application under Section 151 of CPC was moved seeking ex parte order to be set aside and to take the written statement on record. He would 3 contend that vide order dated 02.04.2022, the learned Trial Court allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC moved by the petitioners but rejected the application under Section 151 of CPC and closed the right of the petitioners to file written statement and the same was not taken on record. He would further contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others, 2005 (4) SCC 480 and Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan(Dead) through proposed legal representative Ms. Rohini, 2020 (2) SCC 708 have held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC are directory in nature. He would lastly submit that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application moved by the petitioners by imposing some cost etc. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shukla, They would submit that the civil suit was filed in the year 2018 and the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 appeared in the year 2018 itself before the learned Trial Court but they failed to file the written statement within a period of 90 days, therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioners under Section 151 of CPC and denied to take on record the written statement. They would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and -4- perused the documents placed on the record. 5. In the matter of Nanhku (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 46 held as under:- “46. We sum up and briefly state our conclusions as under:- (i) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (ii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (iii) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order 8 of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non- compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away. (v) Though Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.” 6. In the matter of Desh Raj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 5 para 15 held as under:- “15. However, it would be gainsaid that although the unamended Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is directory, it cannot be interpreted to bestow a free hand to on any litigant or lawyer to file written statement at their own sweet will and/or to prolong the lis. The legislative objective behind prescription of timelines under the CPC must be given due weightage so that the disputes are resolved in a timebound manner. Inherent discretion of Courts, like the ability to condone delays under Order VIII Rule 1 is a fairly defined concept and its contours have been shaped through judicial decisions over the ages. Illustratively, extreme hardship or delays occurring due to factors beyond control of parties despite proactive diligence, may be just and equitable instances for condonation of delay.” 7. Taking into consideration the fact that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC are directory in nature. Further, the learned Trial Court allowed the application moved by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC and on the same day, the written statement was filed, therefore, the Court below ought to have allowed the application moved by the petitioners under Section 151 of CPC. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Trial Court dated 07.09.2021 and 02.04.2022 in Civil Suit No.12-A/2020 whereby the right of the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 3 to file written statement was closed or the written statement was not taken on record are hereby set aside subject to payment of the cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the plaintiffs. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha