[2026:RJ-JP:31975] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15416/2026 CNR: RJHC020760842026 | URN: CW / 32796U / 2026 Bagh Singh Alias Malkhan Singh, S/o Late Shri Shivdayal Singh, Resident Of Village Sarund, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli- Behror ----Petitioner Versus 1. Krishna Singh S/o Late Shri Jaswant Singh, Resident Of Village Sarund, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli- Behror. 2. Shaitan Singh S/o Late Shri Jaswant Singh, Resident Of Village Sarund, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli- Behror. 3. Shriman Tehsildar Mahoday, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli- Behror 4. Shriman Sub-Registrar Mahoday, Sub-Registrar Office, Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror 5. Shriman District Collector Mahoday, District Kotputli- Behror ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Garg For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 13/08/2026 1. Petitioner is defendant No. 1 and submits that respondents no.1 & 2-plaintiffs have filed a suit for cancellation of Will, executed in his favour, wherein the right to file written statement has been closed vide order dated 01.04.2026. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record and order impugned dated 01.04.2026. [2026:RJ-JP:31975] (2 of 4) [CW-15416/2026] 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have filed a civil suit to declare the Will dated 20.02.2008 as null and void. In this Will, the petitioner is beneficiary, hence has been impleaded as defendant No. 1, in the suit. Petitioner-defendant no.1 put in appearance in the present suit on 01.11.2025 but thereafter could not file his written statements within the stipulated period prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, hence, his right to file written statement has been closed by the Trial Court vide order dated 01.04.2026, whereagainst this writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that it is well established proposition of law that the statutory period of 30 days, which is extendable to 90 days as provided under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, is not a mandatory period for the civil suit, though such period is mandatory for the commercial suit. His submission is that considering the sufficient reasons of delay and by compensating the respondents-plaintiffs, petitioner can be awarded an opportunity to file written statement, which is a valuable right to defend the present suit. 5. To buttress his submission reference of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 480] has been given. Relevant para no. 41 is being reproduced hereunder:- "41. Considering the object and purpose behind enacting Rule 1 of Order 8 in the present form and the context in which the provision is placed, we are of the opinion that the provision has to be construed as directory and not mandatory. In exceptional situations, the court may extend the time for filing the written statement though the period of 30 days and 90 days, referred to in the provision, has expired. However, we may not be misunderstood as nullifying the entire force and impact — the entire life and vigour — of the provision. The delaying [2026:RJ-JP:31975] (3 of 4) [CW-15416/2026] tactics adopted by the defendants in law courts are now proverbial as they do stand to gain by delay. This is more so in election disputes because by delaying the trial of election petition, the successful candidate may succeed in enjoying the substantial part, if not in its entirety, the term for which he was elected even though he may lose the battle at the end. Therefore, the judge trying the case must handle the prayer for adjournment with firmness. The defendant seeking extension of time beyond the limits laid down by the provision may not ordinarily be shown indulgence." 6. It has further been pointed out that the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kailash v. Nanhku (supra) still holds the field and has been followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again, recently in case of Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, reported in MANU/SC/1813/2022 decided on 09.05.2022, wherein it was observed in para no.3 as hereunder:- “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 Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as 'Kailash v. Nankhu and Ors.' reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480.” 7. This court finds that petitioner has not filed any application for seeking extension of time and to take his written statement before the Trial Court. 8. Hence, instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move an appropriate application along with his written statement before the trial Court within a period of 30 days, seeking to recall the order dated 01.04.2026 or to grant extension of time for taking his written statement on record. 9. It is hereby observed that in case any such application is filed, the trial Court shall consider and decide the same after giving due hearing to the respondents-plaintiffs, in accordance [2026:RJ-JP:31975] (4 of 4) [CW-15416/2026] with law but keeping in mind the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kailash v. Nanhku (supra). 10. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 7/RACHNA