2025:JHHC:26897 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.1336 of 2023 Rafique Mian, S/o Ismail Mian, R/o Village- Saharpur, PO- Chainpur, PS- Narayanpur, District- Jamtara. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Safique Ansari, S/o Late Abedin Mian 2. Aziz Mian, S/o Late Abedin Mian 3. Yasin Mian, S/o Late Abedin Mian 4. Anwar Mian, S/o Late Abedin Mian 5. Md. Ekbal Ansari, S/o Late Abedin Mian 6. Abdul Rahman, S/o Idrish Mian, All are R/o Village- Saharpur, PO- Chainpur, PS- Narayanpur, District- Jamtara. .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nityanand Pd. Choudhary, Advocate For the O.P. 1 to 6 : Mr. Zia- Ul- Haque, Advocate …... 04/ 04.09.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioner is the defendant and is aggrieved by the order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)-I, Jamtara in Original Suit No.04 of 2023 by which his petition to accept written statement has been rejected as it was filed after the statutory period of limitation of 90 days. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice was received by him on 13.02.2023 and he entered into appearance on 14.03.2023. After appearance, the written statement was filed after period of limitation of 90 days on 01.09.2023. However, the delay was not intentional and due to inadvertence, the written statement could not be filed within time. 3. It is further submitted that Petitioner / defendant has a good case and he will be seriously prejudiced if the written statement is not accepted as the trial has not commenced. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff(s)/ opp. Party(s) defends the impugned order. It is submitted that the defendant was regularly appearing, but only with a view to delay the disposal of the case, he did not file the written statement within the stipulated period of time. 5. Contrary to the submission made, from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the case was at the stage of final argument and despite several adjournments, being granted by the learned trial 2025:JHHC:26897 2 Court, written statement was not filed consequently the Petitioner was debarred from filing Written Statement and the case was fixed for final argument. 6. It is true that O 8 R 1 is not mandatory and delay can be condoned if sufficient reason is shown for the delay and no prejudice is caused. But this cannot be a tool and it has been held in Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co., (2018) 6 SCC 639 : “20. This provision has come up for interpretation before this Court in number of cases. No doubt, the words “shall not be later than ninety days” do not take away the power of the court to accept written statement beyond that time and it is also held that the nature of the provision is procedural and it is not a part of substantive law. At the same time, this Court has also mandated that time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. We would like to reproduce the following discussion from Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344] : (SCC p. 364, para 21) “21. … There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to “make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit”. Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1.” (emphasis supplied) 7. In the present Case, despite several adjournments having been granted, the petitioner/Defendant waited till the case was posted for argument, when he filed the petition for accepting his written statement, which has been rightly dismissed. Being devoid of any merit, the instant CMP stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-