2025:JHHC:28603 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 151 of 2025 1. Dhananjay Prasad @ Dhananjay Gupta, S/o Bhagwan Prasad 2. Ravi Shankar Prasad @ Ravi Shankar Kumar, S/o Bhagwan Prasad 3. Jai Shankar Prasad @ Jayshankar Kumar, S/o Bhagwan Prasad 4. Smt. Meena Devi, W/o Bhagwan Prasad All are R/o Village & P.O. & P.S.-Fesar, District-Aurangabad, Bihar ..... .... Petitioners Versus 1. Fulmati Kuar, W/o Late Dukhi Sao, D/o Late Chandrika Sao, R/o Village- Pokhara Mohalla, PO & PS & District-Aurangabad, Bihar 2. Shyam Dulari Devi, W/o Sri Gaya Sao, D/o Late Chandrika Sao, R/o Village- Pokhara Mohalla, PO & PS & District-Aurangabad, Bihar 3. Shanti Devi, W/o Sri Pancham Sao, D/o Late Chandrika Sao, R/o Village- Kharanti, PO & PS-Obara, District-Aurangabad, Bihar 4. (a) Devendra Prasad @ Pappu (b) Ravindra Prasad @ Munna Jee (c) Jitendra Prasad @ Bablu, all are sons of Nagmati Devi and Late Shyam Deo Prasad, R/o At-Muhalla-Pampu Kal, PO & PS-Daltonganj, District- Palamau, State-Jharkhand (d) Nirmala Devi W/o Shree Kishor Prasad, R/o At-Peska More, Ranchi, PO & PS-Kishorganj, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand (e) Devanand Prasad, S/o Late Laldhari Shaw (f) Purspam, S/o Devanand Prasad, R/o At-Mohalla Belwatikar, PO & PS- Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Jharkhand (g) Mina Devi, W/o Shree Sanjay Prasad, R/o At-Muhalla-Pampu Kal, PO & PS-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, State-Jharkhand … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. D. Ravi, Advocate Ms. Priya Saw, Advocate For the O.P. Nos. 1-3 : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Kishore Kr. Mishra, Advocate Mr. Umesh Pathak, Advocate ------ Order No. 07 / Dated : 16.09.2025. 1. The petitioners are the defendants and the instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 30.08.2022 and 24.08.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 146/2019 by which the petitioners have been debarred from filing the written statement. 2. The plaintiffs filed partition suit being Original Suit No. 146/2019 for 1/5th share in the suit property and also to declare the Sale Deed No. 10137 executed on 17.10.2001 in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 4 be declared to be null and void as also inoperative. 2025:JHHC:28603 3. The plaintiffs and defendants come from the same extended family. After receiving the notices, the petitioners appeared before the Trial Court through their counsel. On 05.04.2022 they sought for adjournment to file the written statement on different dates and lastly on 30.08.2022 the defendants were debarred from filing the written statement. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the statutory time of 90 days for filing the written statement is directory and not mandatory in nature. The defendants have got a good case, as they claim title over the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed and will be prejudiced, if the written statement is not permitted to be brought on record. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties/plaintiffs submits that the notice was served on 31.07.2019 and sufficient adjournments were granted to the petitioners and finally on 30.08.2022, the petitioners were debarred from filing the written statement. It is further submitted that no cogent reason has been assigned for belated filing of the written statement to be filed. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, law is settled that the provision for filing the written statement within the stipulated time is not mandatory but directory in nature in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 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. Here in the present case, the petitioners claim title on the basis of registered sale deed which is under challenge. In the suit, it appears that although the petitioners had appeared in the court below through the counsel, but even the witnesses, examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, were not cross-examined and consequently, they were discharged. This lends credence to the plea on behalf of the Petitioner, that non-filing of WS was on account of lapse on part of the conducting counsel. In any case, the substantial justice cannot suffer on account of laches on the part of the counsel on behalf of other sides. 8. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. This civil misc. petition stands allowed for accepting the written statement, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiffs. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) 16.09.2025 Pawan/ -