[2025:RJ-JP:4192] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1944/2024 Brij Mohan Mahawar S/o Shri Ishwar, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Narwarpuri, Bas Badanpura, Ramgarh Moad, Jaipur. ----Petitioner/ Defendant No.4 Versus 1. Ramphool S/o Nathuram Hotla, Aged About 76 Years, Resident Of Plot No.71, Narwarpuri, Near Ice Cream Factory, Saraswati School Ke Pass, Bas Badanpura, Jaipur. 2. Pramanand Mahawar S/o Shri Babu Lal Mahawar, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Plot No.72, Narwarpuri, Near Ice Cream Factory, Saraswati School Ke Pass, Bas Badanpura, Jaipur. ---Respondents/ Plaintiffs 3. Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Through Its Mayor, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 4. Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Through Its Dy. Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Office, Chogan Stadium, Gangori Bazar, Jaipur. 5. Nagar Nigam Jaipur, Through Its Dy. Commissioner, Zone Amer, Gandhi Chowk Buas Stand, Amer, Jaipur. ----Respondents/ Defendants No.1 to 3 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Mahawar For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 30/01/2025 1. By means of instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-defendant No.4 has impugned the order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.721/2019 (595/2020) by the Court of Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan II, dismissing petitioner's application dated 11.08.2023 to take written statement on record. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:4192] (2 of 4) [CW-1944/2024] 3. From perusal of record, this is an undisputed fact that respondents-plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction on 08.05.2019, seeking direction against Nagar Nigam, Jaipur to remove the encroachment made by defendant No.4 on the public land of Nala and way. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, being defendants No.1 to 3, have filed written statement. Defendant No.4, though has put in appearance in the present suit after service of summons on 18.05.2019, and was granted several opportunities to file written statement, but he did not file written statement, despite giving opportunity on cost, hence his opportunity to file written statement was closed vide order dated 27.05.2022. 4. It appears that thereafter, on the basis of plaint and written statement filed by Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, the trial Court framed issues on 27.08.2022 and on behalf of plaintiffs, two witnesses namely Ramphool & Pramanand Mahawar, were examined. At this juncture, defendant No.4 moved an application dated 11.08.2023, asking to grant an opportunity to file written statement. A copy of application dated 11.08.2023 has been placed on record as Annexure.2. 5. On bare perusal of contents of the application dated 11.08.2023, it transpires that the petitioner has not assigned any reason whatsoever for not filing his written statement within the prescribed period of 90 days' from the date of service of summons upon him. The trial Court in the order impugned, has also observed that the application is without reason, for not filing written statement within prescribed time. [2025:RJ-JP:4192] (3 of 4) [CW-1944/2024] 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan [(2020) 2 SCC 708] has held that for civil suit though the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory in nature, however, in exceptional circumstances and on assigning sufficient reasons, the Court may grant further opportunity to defendant(s) to file written statement, even after expiry of the statutory period of 120 days'. 7. Having examined the impugned order on the touchstone of the principle of law expounded by the Apex Court, referred hereinabove, petitioner-defendant No.4 has not assigned any reason what to say of giving sufficient reason, for not filing written statement within prescribed time. The conduct of petitioner- defendant No.4 has been noticed by the trial Court that the application dated 11.08.2023 was filed only to prolong the trial of the matter and to avoid cross examination of plaintiffs' two witnesses. 8. This Court, having perused the order impugned dated 17.10.2023, does not find any perversity or jurisdictional error. In addition, this Court further finds that the basic order dated 27.05.2022, through which the opportunity to file written statement of petitioner-defendant No.4 was closed, has not been challenged by petitioner in the present writ petition. That apart, the Nagar Nigam, Jaipur has already filed written statement. 9. In such circumstances, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to grant any indulgence in the impugned order. No equity lies in favour of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:4192] (4 of 4) [CW-1944/2024] 10 As a result, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/10