1 2026:CGHC:983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 9 of 2026 1. Rishi Kumar Janghel S/o Late Kriparam Janghel, aged about 40 years R/o Anand Nagar, Near Balaji Temple, Telibandha, Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Shoaib Ahmed Khan S/o Late A.A. Khan, aged about 47 years R/o House No. 83 Main Road Anand Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Smt. Salma Khan Wd/o Late A.A. Khan, aged about 74 years R/o House No. 83 Main Road Anand Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Raipur (C.G.) 3. Sub Divisional Officer Raipur (C.G.) 4. Additional Tahsildar Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Shri Aman Ansari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vedant Sadangi, PL For Respondent No.2 Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order In Chamber dated 07.01.2026 2 This petition has been filed against the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by XIII Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raipur, CG in Civil Suit No. 118-A/2024 rejecting the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs filed under Order VIII Rule 10 and Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the “CPC”). 2. Facts in short: The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in the Court of XIII Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raipur against the respondents/defendants on 05.03.2024. Notice was served on respondent/defendant No.2 on 10.04.2024. Respondent/defendant No.2 however instead of filing written statement filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 02.08.2024 which came to be rejected on 07.07.2025. Thereafter, it filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC on 13.08.2025, which according to the petitioners/plaintiffs was to delay the hearing of the suit. On 10.09.2025 respondent/defendant is stated to have filed the written statement with a delay of around one year and five months. The petitioners/plaintiffs then filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 and 10 read with Section 151 CPC on 07.10.2025 inter alia stating that respondent/defendant No.2 though received summons on 10.04.2024 yet it did not file written statement within the prescribed period of 30 days nor within the extandable period of 90 days, and therefore the written statement filed with a huge delay was liable to be rejected. Said application however came to be rejected by the order impugned even in the absence of any reply by respondent/defendant No.2. Hence this petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned is against the settled legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. He submits that even for filing the written statement within the extandable period of 90 days special reasons are to be assigned. However, since there was a huge delay of around one year and five months on the part of respondent/defendant No.2 in filing the written statement, the order impugned rejecting the application for striking down the delayed written statement is bad in law . Being all this, the order impugned is 3 requested to be set aside. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kailash v. Nanhku and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/defendant No.2 supports the order impugned and submits that as the procedural law is intended to subserve the ends of justice, the order impugned cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary warranting interference in this petition. Learned State counsel also assisted the Court 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record including the order impugned. 6. The issue regarding the time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule CPC is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the matter of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 has categorcally held that the provision prescribing the time limit for filing written statement is directory and not mandatory and that the Court has the discretion to permit filing of written statement even beyond the prescribed period in order to advance the cause of justice. Supreme Court has further held that the procedural law is intended to subserve the ends of justice and not to foreclose the merited adjudication on mere technicalities. In the present case, learned trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has exercised its discretion in accepting the written statement even beyond the period prescribed just to ensure that the ends of justice is not put to peril. Even the decision sought to be taken support of by the counsel for the petitioners referred to above says that the purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under order VIII Rule 1 CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. It further says that the provision does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time, and that the power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII Rule CPC is not completely taken away. 4 7. In view of the position – factual and legal, the order impugned rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to strike down the written statement filed with delay, appears to be just and proper and in the direction to secure the ends of justice on merits. Nothing makes this Court interfere with the well written order. Accordingly, the petition being without substance fails and is dismissed. Order impugned is left undisturbed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi