1 2025:CGHC:5712 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 107 of 2025  Gajanand Sapha S/o Shri Ganga Dev Sapha Aged About 48 Years R/o Shitla Chowk, Amin Para, Mathpara, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Canara Bank Banking Company Act, 1970 One Corporate Nikay Head Office Bangalore Local Office- Canara Bank Abhanpur Branch, Through Sumit Sonalkar, Son Of Ravindra Sonalkar, R/o Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 31/01/2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly been pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner’s case. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ or writs, order or orders, to quash the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Third Additional Judge of First Civil Judge Senior Class, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No. 125-B/2019 in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.02.03 14:54:13 +0530 2 the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted. 2) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,28,557/- from the petitioner/defendant before the learned 3rd Additional Judge of 1st Civil Judge Senior Class, Raipur registered as Civil Suit No. 125-B/2019. A loan was taken by the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,98,400/- for purchasing ATUL GEM Auto Rickshaw and the petitioner was supposed to pay 84 installments of Rs. 3,171/- @ 2 % interest but after paying some installments, the petitioner stopped paying installments, therefore, a civil suit was preferred. Learned trial Court closed the opportunity to file the written statement on 20.06.2023. The petitioner filed the written statement on 20.07.2023 along with an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC for taking the written statement on record which was rejected vide order dated 15.10.2024 and the case has been fixed for the plaintiff’s evidence. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below has fixed the case for the plaintiff’s evidence without assigning any cogent reason. He further submits the petitioner received a copy of the plaint on 23.03.2023 but in the absence of copies of the documents annexed to the plaint and thereafter, due to the summer vacation of the Court, the petitioner could not file a written statement by 20.06.2023. He contends that the petitioner filed a written statement on 20.07.2023 along with an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC which has been rejected by the learned Court below which is contrary to the Civil Procedure Code. He prays to quash the order dated 15.10.2024 whereby the application moved by petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected and the case has been set for ex-parte 3 plaintiff’s evidence. 4) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5) Petitioner/defendant has placed on record only one order-sheet of the trial Court dated 15.10.2024 whereby his application under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected but no earlier order-sheets have been placed on record. After the receipt of a copy of the plaint on 23.03.2023, the petitioner ought to have filed the written statement within a period of 90 days but he failed to do so and no cogent reason has been assigned in the application moved. Further, the petitioner has also not challenged the order dated 20.06.2023 whereby his right to file a written statement has been closed by the learned Court below. 6) Taking into consideration the fact that the right of the defendant to file written statement was closed and that order has not been challenged, no direction can be issued to the learned trial Court to afford an opportunity to the defendant to file written statement. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya