2025:JHHC:26161 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No. 693 of 2024 ----- 1. Baijan Kumar mandal @ Baijan Kumar, S/o Late Arjun Mandal, R/o- Purana Basti, Ward No.2, P.O. & P.S.-Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum 2. Tusar Kanti Mandal, S/o Late Anant Kumar Mandal, R/o-Purana Basti, Ward No.2, P.O. & P.S.-Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum … …. Petitioners Versus 1.(a) Lal Mohan Mahto, S/o Sita Ram Mahto 1.(b) Abhijeet Mahto, S/o Lal Mohan Mahto 1.(c) Amarjeet Mahto, S/o Lal Mohan Mahto 1.(d) Usha Rani Mahto, D/o Lal Mohan Mahto, W/o Ghanshyam Mahto, R/o Village-Gajpur, P.O. Tunia, District West Singhbhum 1.(e) Ajit Mahto, S/o Lal Mohan Mahto O.P. Nos. 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(e) are residents of Ward No. 1 Purana Basti, Town, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum 2. Smt. Hem Kumari Mahto, W/o Hari Lal Mahto, R/o Purana Basti, Ward No. 1, P.O. & P.S. Chakradharpur, District-West Singhbhum … …. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate For the O. P. No.2 : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate ----- Oral Order 06 / Dated : 29.08.2025 1. Opposite party no. 2 has already appeared by filing Vakalatnama. Notices were earlier issued on opposite party nos. 1(a) to 1(e). As per service report, the notice has been validly served on opposite party no. 1(a) and for the rest substituted respondents i.e. opposite party nos. 1(b) to 1(e), their father has received the notice. 2. Under the circumstance, notices are declared to be validly served on opposite party nos. 1(b) to 1(e). 3. The petitioners are the defendants and the instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 11.06.2024 passed in Original Suit No. 32 of 2022 by which the petitioners/defendants have been debarred from filing the written statement on the ground that they had appeared on 20.12.2022 on receipt of notice, however, the written statement was filed on 21.07.2023, 2025:JHHC:26161 2 beyond the statutory period for filing the same. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that they claimed the title on the basis of registered sale deed and have a good case, therefore, non-acceptance of written statement will seriously prejudice the defence. The delay was not intentional as the petitioner is an old man and he was suffering from different ailments. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has defended the impugned order and submitted that the mandate of law under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC for filing of written statement within 90 days has not been complied with. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, law is settled that the provision for filing the written statement within the stipulated time is not mandatory but directory in nature. Reliance is placed on Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India {(2005) 6 SCC 344}. Further, it was held in 2017 (4) PLJR 43 (SC) (Sidaalingayya Vs. Gurulingappa & Ors.) that denying the opportunity to file written statement will amount to condemn a person unheard. 7. Considering the delay and overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside. This civil misc. petition stands allowed for accepting the written statement, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- to the plaintiffs. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satyendra