HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.2525 of 2018 Smt. Prem Devi @ Prema Rawat --Petitioner Versus Abhishek Bhandari and others --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of this petition, petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 26.06.2015 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri Camp, Dehradun (Annexure No.9) and judgment and order dated 18.04.2018 passed by Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (Annexure No.1). 2. Facts in nutshell are petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttarakhand (U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950) (Adaptation and Modification Order 2001) in the Court of Assistant Collector, First Class/Pargana Adhikari, Dehradun. During the course of pendency, respondent nos.1 and 2 (defendant nos.4 and 5) were arrayed. Despite being given time, respondent nos.1 and 2 did not file their written statement and on 08.05.2012, the Assistant Collector, Dehradun closed the opportunity of respondent nos.1 and 2 to file their written statement. On 30.05.2012, application seeking recall of order dated 8.5.2012 was moved which was rejected on 31.5.2013. Thereafter, on 12.06.2013, another application was moved by respondent nos.1 and 2 to recall the orders dated 8.5.2012 and 31.05.2013, which was again 1 refused on 15.07.2013 by the Court of Assistant Collector, Dehradun. Challenging the orders dated 15.7.2013, 31.5.2013 and 8.5.2012, Revenue Revision No.60 of 2012-13 was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri Camp. The said authority by his judgment dated 26.06.2015, allowed the revision, accepted the written statement dated 30.5.2012 and set aside the impugned orders with a direction to the court below to decide the case on merits. Challenging the order dated 26.6.2015, petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand which dismissed the same by judgment dated 18.04.2018. Challenging these orders, present petition has been filed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 in which denying the averments made in the writ petition, the impugned orders passed by the authorities below have been supported. It is stated that the copy of plaint and other documents were not supplied to the answering respondents due to which the written statement could not be filed immediately. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgments and orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue have erred in law in permitting the respondent nos.1 and 2 to file their written statements on record. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 has supported the impugned orders. 7. The application to implead the respondent nos.1 and 2 was moved on 24.05.2010 which was 2 allowed on 5.8.2011, pursuant to which they appeared in the Court on 17.11.2011. Thereafter for few dates, judicial work was suspended. The next date fixed was 8.5.2012, however, on that very date, the opportunity to file written statement by respondent nos.1 and 2 was closed. There was no evidence/summon available on record to prove that after being impleaded as respondents, any notice was given to them. They could not file the written statement due to presiding officers being busy in administrative work and advocates were on strike. Learned Revisional Court noticed this error and corrected the same by way of impugned order which was even affirmed by the Board of Revenue. 8. On this very issue, the direct authority of the Apex Court is in the case of ‘Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chabra’ 2022 Live Law (SC) 465 wherein it was held that time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory but directory in nature in view of judgment of the Apex Court reported in ‘Kailash v Nankhu and others’ reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. It was also held that the delay, if any, could well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable. 9. All said, there is hardly any ground of interference. The petition fails and the same is dismissed. The judgments and orders, under challenge, are hereby affirmed. The trial Court is directed to proceed ahead with the trial expeditiously. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.10.2025 Rdang 3