2025:JHHC:31966 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 253 of 2024 Bablu Lohra, S/o Late Madan Lohra, R/o Chutia, Mahadeo Toli, P.O. & P.S.- Chutia, District-Ranchi ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Shankar Sahu, S/o Late Jagdish Sahu 2. Prakash Sahu, S/o Late Kiswar Sahu 3. Rohit Kumar, S/o Late Devraj Sahu S. Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of village-Samlong, Near Oxford Public School, P.O. & P.S.-Namkum, District-Ranchi 4. Manish Lohra, S/o Late Madan Lohra, R/o Chutia, Mahadeo Toli, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, District-Ranchi … …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Nanda Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate Mr. Priyanshu Shekhar, Advocate ------ Order No. 05 / Dated : 15.10.2025. 1. The petitioner is the defendants and the instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 28.06.2022 by which the petitioner has been debarred from filing the written statement. The plaintiffs’ suit is for declaration of right, title and interest and for recovery of possession. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier SAR case no. 112 of 1989-90 was filed by the father of petitioner no. 1 for restoration under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act against the present plaintiffs and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 18.01.1993. The father of the petitioner no. 1 had filed the said SAR case and after his death, the petitioners were not in possession of the relevant documents which occasioned in delay in filing the written statement. It is also submitted that the requirement to file the written statement within ninety days is directory in nature in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India {(2005) 6 SCC 344}. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties-plaintiffs submits that no due diligence was exercised by the defendants-appellants in preferring the written statement within the stipulated time. Learned counsel has placed reliance in Salem Advocate Bar Association (supra) stating that the 2025:JHHC:31966 extension of time cannot be mechanically allowed and there should be reasonable ground for the delay. 4. Considering the delay and overall facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside. 5. 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.) Pawan/ - Uploaded 16.10.2025