2025:JHHC:36969 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 701 of 2024 ------ 1. Jamuna Sao @ Jamuna Prasad 2. Awadhesh Sao @ Awadhesh Prasad Both are sons of Late Vindjyachal Sao 3. Silwanti Devi, wife of Late Dwarika Prasad All are resident of Village Ketar, P.O. & P.S. Ketar, District Garhwa .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, P.O., P.S. & District Garhwa 2. Survey-cum-Settlement Officer, Garhwa-cum-Palamau, Medininagar, P.O. & P.S. Medininagar, District Palamau 3. Baijnath Sao 4. Rajaram Ram Both are sons of Late Surjan Sao 5. Anand Sao 6. Binod Sao 7. hariram Sao 8. Jai Shankar Sao 9. Om Prakash Sao 10. Jai Prakash Sao Opposite Party Nos.5 – 10 are sons of Late Baijnath Sao .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.2, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Kumar Bhatta, A.C. to S.C.I For the O.P. Nos.4 – 10 : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate Ms. Shobha Kumari, Advocate Order No.07 / Dated : 09.12.2025 Notices were earlier issued to the proposed legal heirs of deceased opposite party no.3. In the light of office note, notices are declared to be validly served on all the proposed legal heirs save and except opposite party no.3(f) for which the service report has not been received. Since all come from the same family and the notices were sent by registered post and the same has not been returned unserved till date, therefore, notice is deemed to be validly served on opposite party no.3(f). Instant civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 05.01.2022 passed in Original Suit No.62/2021 whereby and whereunder the petitioners/defendants have been debarred from filing 2025:JHHC:36969 written statement and the order dated 17.06.2023 against the petition for recall of the said order, has also been rejected by the learned trial Court. 2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the property detailed in Schedule A of the plaint and for further direction to the Revenue Authority to enter the name of plaintiffs in the Revisional Survey Khatiyan. 3. The present petitioners in pursuant to the notice issued appeared before the trial Court on 21.09.2021 and since the written statement was not filed within stipulated time, therefore, they were debarred from filing it by the impugned order dated 05.01.2022. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of defendants /petitioners that provision under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not mandatory, rather directory in nature as held by the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 5. The defendants/petitioners will be seriously prejudiced if opportunity is not granted to file written statement. 6. Learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that the suit was filed in 2021 and notices were issued which was duly served on the petitioners. More than 90 days have been elapsed and consequently, they were debarred from filing written statement on 05.01.2022, however, recall petition was filed after inordinate delay on 12.05.2022. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and more particularly the plea that initial delay in filing written statement was on account of Covid 19, the impugned order is set aside subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly, allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit 11.12.2025