1 C.M.P. No. 34 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- C.M.P. No. 34 of 2025 ---- 1.Firan Sahu aged 51 years son of late Gandura Ohdar 2.Rama Sahu aged 50 years son of late Gandura Ohdar 3.Jain Kumar Sahu aged 46 years son of late Gandura Ohdar 4.Fulo Devi aged 67 years w/o late Gandura Ohdar All resident of village Kamdara PO and PS Kamdara Dist Gumla …… …. … Plaintiffs/Petitioner(s) -- Versus -- Anita Devi wife of late Janak Sahu and Others…. Def./ Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Opp.Parties :- ---- 2/21.01.2025 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jr. Division-II, Gumla in Original Suit No.02 of 2014 whereby the petition filed under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC for recalling the order dated 18.4.2015 by which the learned court has allowed the petition and taken the written statement of the defendant on the record. 3. Mr. Arun Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that belatedly the said petition was filed and the written statement was directed to be taken on record which is not in accordance with law. He submits that after nine years the said petition was allowed. On this ground, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. The Court has gone through the impugned order dated 17.08.2024. The defendant has pointed out before the learned court that previous counsel of the defendant no.2 has wrongly advised him that the brother has died and stage has changed and now the plaintiffs have to take steps for substitution of legal 2 C.M.P. No. 34 of 2025 heirs/representatives of the defendant no.1 and thereafter the written statement will be filed jointly and substituted defendants. He submits that thereafter the petitioners have been advised to file the written statement. It was also pointed out to the learned court that the petitioners were ignorant of the law and in view of that the written statement was not filed within time in the light of the Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. 5. It is now well settled that the said Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory as has been held in the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and a reference may be made to the case of Kailash v. Nankhu & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. 6. The learned court has allowed the said petition with cost of Rs.3500/- to be paid to the plaintiff. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order, and hence, this petition is dismissed. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/