1 2025:CGHC:42641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 832 of 2025 1. Devcharan S/o Shri Pachkoud Aged About 62 Years By Caste - Teli, R/o Village Kharve Tahsil- Kasdol, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. Laxmi W/o Ganeshram Aged About 25 Years Bu Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Kumhari P.H.N. -04, R.N.M. Gidhouri, Tahsil- Tundra Distt- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Shanti Bai D/o Shri Nanki Sahu Aged About 60 Years By Caste- Teli, R/o Village Kumhari P.H. N. -04, R.N.M. Gidhouri Tahsil - Tundra Distt- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) At- Present Shanti Bai W/o Ramsingh Sahu By Caste - Teli, R/o Village - Kharve Tahsil Kasdol District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector, Balodabazar District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Subham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.06.2025 by which learned SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.08.23 11:41:41 +0530 2 trial Court has closed the right of the defendant and fixed the matter for reply and argument under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 2. Brief facts reflected from the record is that plaintiff Shanti Bai filed civil Suit before learned Civil Judge Class-1 for declaration, title and permanent injunction which was registered as Civil Suit No. 17-A/2024 on 03.05.2024 and after issuance of notice, the defendant No. 1 and 2 appeared before the court on 23.08.2024 since than they are appearing but no written statement was filed, therefore, learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.06.2025 has closed the right of the defendant to file written statement. Being aggrieved with this order, the defendant has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that three months time is not mandatory provision for filing of written statement as per amended provision of CPC but it is discretionary. He would further submit that in view of the well settled legal position of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts, three months time can be extended looking to the facts and circumstances of each case. He would further submit that trial Court should have have been given one more opportunity to file written statement and would pray for allowing the petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Considering the order sheet of the case which clearly reflects that the petitioner is appearing since 23.08.2024 but has not filed written statement upto 12.06.2025 before the trial Court but on the same day, he filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the matter is fixed for reply and argument on this application also, as such the trail is in its initial stage, if the written statement is allowed to be taken on record it will be ends of justice, in conformity with principle of natural justice and fair play. 3 Considering this aspect of the matter, the writ petition is allowed granting one more opportunity to the defendant to file written statement on the next date of hearing fixed by the trial Court. The defendant is directed to file written statement on the next date of hearing fixed before the trial Court, subject to payment of Rs. 1000/- that will be payable to the plaintiff. It is also directed that the written statement filed by the defendant will be taken on record by the trial Court and thereafter they will proceed in the matter, in accordance with the law. 6. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh