1 2025:CGHC:43156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 828 of 2025  Ashiya Begum D/o Mohammad Habib W/o Enayat Hussain Aged About 65 Years Niwasi Post Office Ke Paas Belphad Jila Jharsuguda (Odisha) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Firoja Begum D/o Mohammad Habib W/o Mohammad Nazir Aged About 58 Years Hall Mukam Santosh Bhojnalaya Ke Pass Juni Line Bilaspur Tehsil Va Zila Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Subhash Chandra Agrawal S/o Banwari Lal Agrawal Aged About 70 Years Niwasi Medical Complex Telipara Bilaspur Tehsil Va Zila Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Ramprasad S/o Mehetaru Aged About 54 Years Niwasi Pendridih Tehsil Bilha Zila Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26. 08.2025 1. The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 01-A/2021, and a summons was issued to the defendants. The defendants filed their written statement after the expiry of the statutory period i.e. 90 days; therefore, an objection was raised by the petitioner, and that has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.29 10:20:05 +0530 2 order dated 16.06.2025; against the said order, this petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that according to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, the defendants were under an obligation to file a written statement within a period of 90 days, but it was filed after the expiry of that period, and therefore, the learned trial Court ought not to have accepted the written statement of the defendants on record. He would pray that the order passed by the learned trial Court in this regard may be set-aside. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. In the matter of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, held that the provisions are not mandatory. Para 20 and 21 are reproduced herein- below:- “20. The use of the word 'shall' in Order VIII Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory. We have to ascertain the object which is required to be served by this provision and its design and context in which it is enacted. The use of the word 'shall' is ordinarily indicative of mandatory nature of the provision but having regard to the context in which it is used or having regard to the intention of the legislation, the same can be construed as directory. The rule in question has to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The rules of procedure are made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Construction of the rule or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules or procedure are handmaid of justice and not its mistress. In the present context, the strict interpretation would defeat justice. 21. In construing this provision, support can also be had from Order 8 Rule 10 which provides that where any party from whom a written statement is required 3 under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such other order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. On failure to file written statement under this provision, the Court has been given the discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such other order in relation to suit as it thinks fit. In the context of the provision, despite use of the word 'shall', the court has been given the discretion to pronounce or not to pronounce the judgment against the defendant even if written statement is not filed and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to the suit. In construing the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 and Rule 10, the doctrine of harmonious construction is required to be applied. The effect would be that under Rule 10 of Order 8, the court in its discretion would have power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of period of 90 days provided in Order VIII Rule 1. 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 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.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kailash vs. Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480, while dealing with a similar issue, in para 9 and 44 held as under:- “9. Sub-section (6) of Section 86 of the Act requires trial of an election petition to be continued from day to day until its conclusion, so far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, unless the High Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Sub-section (7) requires every election petition to be tried as expeditiously as possible with an endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from the date of presentation of the election petition. Thus, the procedure provided for the trial of civil suits by the CPC is not in its entirety applicable to the trial of election petitions. The applicability of the procedure is 4 circumscribed by two riders; firstly, the CPC procedure is applicable "as nearly as may be"; and secondly, the CPC procedure would give way to any provisions of the Act and of any rules made thereunder. 44. The extension of time shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing, howsoever brief they may be, by the court. In no case, the defendant shall be permitted to seek extension of time when the court is satisfied that it is a case of laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel. The court may impose costs for dual purpose: (i) to deter the defendant from seeking any extension of time just for asking and (ii) to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused to him. 7. In the matter of Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613, the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the judgment rendered in Kailash (supra), and held as under:- “1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court on 12.08.2021 whereby delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not condoned. 3. Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as ‘Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.’ reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable. 5. Consequently, we allow the present appeal. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The written statement already filed is taken on record. 6. We do hope that the trial Court shall expedite the decision of the suit keeping in view the old age of the plaintiff. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforestated judgments has categorically held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC are directory in nature and are not mandatory, and the written statement, though filed after 90 5 days, may be accepted and considered by the Civil Court, if sufficient reasons have been assigned. 9. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant