CGHC010346632026 2026:CGHC:39756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1183 of 2026 1 - Anurani Das W/o Taraknath Das, Aged About 38 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Anuragi Das In The Cause Title Of The Order Sheets) R/o Ward No. 11, Anand Nagar, Near S.B.I. Bank, Mana Camp, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Taraknath Das S/o Ashutosh Das, Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Anand Nagar, Near S.B.I. Bank, Mana Camp, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Atul Das S/o Late Vinod Das, Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Anand Nagar, Near S.B.I. Bank, Mana Camp, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Anju Das D/o Atul Das, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Anand Nagar, Near S.B.I. Bank, Mana Camp, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Shri Shivam Agrawal, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 10.09.2026 1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 17.06.2026 passed by the learned 11th Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur in Civil Suit No.220A of 2025, whereby, right to file written statement of the defendants-1 and 2 have been forfeited. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.09.11 18:11:35 +0530 Wp227 1183 of 2026 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners are defendants-1 and 2 before the learned trial Court, where the respondents-1 and 2 are the plaintiffs prosecuting a Civil Suit for vacant possession and permanent injunction of the suit land bearing Khasra No.243/33, area 1800 sqft situated at village-Banrasi, PH NO,79, Tahsil and District- Raipur. He would submit that the petitioners have not received copy of the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court for which repeatedly time was granted to the plaintiffs to supply the same to the defendants-1 and 2. The defendants made their appearance before the proceeding on 07.10.2025 and thereafter, on 11.11.2025, 03.12.2025, 16.12.2025, 19.01.2026, 27.01.2026, 06.02.2026, 20.02.2026 and also on 10.03.2026, repeatedly made efforts for supply of said documents to them. However, they could not get the documents from the plaintiffs and for that reason, their written statement could not be filed before the learned trial Court. He would also submit that thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which was decided on 13.05.2026 and thereafter, the case was fixed for filing of the written statement on 17.06.2026. Since the documents could not be received by the defendants-1 and 2, they were unable to file the same and on 17.06.2026, when they again requested the plaintiffs for supply of documents, defendants’ right to file written statement has been forfeited. Wp227 1183 of 2026 3 3. Leaned counsel for the petitioners would further ;submit that instead of forfeiting the right of defendants to file written statement, the plaintiffs should have been directed to supply copy of the documents to the defendants and then only, the defendants may be directed to file the written statement. Forfeiting the right of defendants to file written statement would prejudice their defence and without there being any document, no effective written statement could be prepared by them. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioners/defendants-1 and 2 may be directed to file their written statement on the date fixed before the learned trial court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Facts of the case as emerge from the order-sheets of the learned trial court appear to be undisputed with respect to the adjournment of the proceeding and direction to the plaintiffs to supply copy of the documents to the defendants. From the order-sheets it also transpires that on various occasions, plaintiffs were directed to supply copy of the documents to the defendants. 6. From the order-sheet dated 10.03.2026, it transpires that the plaintiffs sought time to supply copies of the documents and thereafter, application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC has been filed on 20.03.2026. Though the petitioners/defendants-1 and 2 could not file their written statement within the maximum period of 90 days as provided Wp227 1183 of 2026 4 under Order VIII Rule1 of the CPC, the time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not mandatory, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Kalra Vs Raj Kishan Chhabra, (2022) SCC Online SC 613. 7. Since the petitioners have already made their effort to get the documents from the plaintiffs but they could not file their written statement, which reflected from the order sheets, keeping in view the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Kalra (supra), this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served, if the trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the defendants- 1 and 2 (Petitioners herein) to file written statement on record and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.06.2026, passed by the learned Trial Court, is hereby set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to fix a date for filing of the written statement by defendants-1 and 2, which shall not be beyond a period of 10 days from today. 9. In the event of defendants’ filing their written statement within the stipulated period, the same shall be taken on record. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma