1 2025:CGHC:40310 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 153 of 2025 * - Babloo Kumar S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Aged About 40 Years R/o 208, Marauda Tank Telgupara Ward No. 61 Civic Center Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - M/s Satya Tracking Private Limited Branch Office Near T.I.C. G.E. Road Tatibandh Correct Mentioned As Per Plaintiff Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Shop No. 5 Second Floor Chauhan Estate Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2) 3 - Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited Regional Office Second Floor Simran Tower In Front Of LIC Building Pandri Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 3 ) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 2 For respondent No. 3 : : : None, though served Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the record of the case for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P/1) and grant an opportunity to the petitioner to file written statement before the trial Court. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.13 19:54:42 +0530 2 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Mr. Virendra Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,71,329/- against the defendants. He would contend that summons were issued to the defendants. He would submit that summons was served on the petitioner on 07.09.2023 and the petitioner/defendant No. 1 filed Vakalatnama on 27.09.2023 and thereafter took adjournment to file written statement on 11.10.2023 and 07.11.2023. He would submit that on 06.12.2023 when the petitioner/defendant No. 1 sought an adjournment, the learned trial Court closed the right of defendant No.1/petitioner to file written statement. He would submit that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC are directory in nature. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the petitioner/defendant No.1 was afforded 03 opportunity to file written statement, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly closed the right of the petitioner/defendant No.1 to file written statement. They would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Kailash vs. Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 613 while dealing with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC held has under:- 3 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kailash (supra) in para 9 and 44 held as under:- “9. Sub-section (6) of Section 86 of the Act requires trial of an election petition to be continued from day to day until its conclusion, so far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, unless the High Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Sub- section (7) requires every election petition to be tried as expeditiously as possible with an endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from the date of presentation of the election petition. Thus, the procedure provided for the trial of civil suits by the CPC is not in its entirety applicable to the trial of election petitions. The applicability of the procedure is circumscribed by two riders; firstly, the CPC procedure is applicable "as nearly as may be"; and secondly, the CPC procedure would give way to any provisions of the Act and of any rules made thereunder. 44. The extension of time shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing, howsoever brief they may be, by the court. In no case, the defendant shall be permitted to seek extension of time when the court is satisfied that it is a case of laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel. The court may impose costs for dual purpose: (i) to deter the defendant from seeking any extension of time just for asking and (ii) to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused to him. 7. In the matter of Bharat Kalra (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the judgment rendered in Kailash (supra) and held as under:- “1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court on 12.08.2021 whereby delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not condoned. 3. Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as ‘Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.’ reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. 4 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable. 5. Consequently, we allow the present appeal. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The written statement already filed is taken on record. 6. We do hope that the trial Court shall expedite the decision of the suit keeping in view the old age of the plaintiff. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 8. In the present case, the petitioner filed his Vakalatnama on 07.09.2023 and took adjournment on 27.09.2023, 11.10.2023 and 07.11.2023 and thereafter on 06.12.2023, the learned trial Court closed his right to file written statement. 9. It is well settled principles that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC are directory in nature. The learned trial Court ought to have afforded one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after imposing costs. 10. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present case,the petition is allowed and order passed by the learned trial Court dated 06.12.2023 is hereby set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- payable to the defendants. The concerned trial Court shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to file written statement. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti