1 CGHC010236342025 2026:CGHC:39952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 520 of 2025 Smt. Khurshid Bano W/o Gaffar Bhai Aged About 40 Years Caste Muslim, R/o Harra Padav Surdongar Tahsil Keshkal District Kondagaon (C.G.) (Defendant No.1) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Bhanuram S/o Shyamcharan Aged About 58 Years Caste R/o Surdongar, Tahsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District Kondagaon (C.G.) (Defendant No. 2) Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board 11/09/2026 Heard. 1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned orders dated VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.16 10:52:00 +0530 2 06.07.2023 and 04.04.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-II, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2022, whereby, the right to file written statement of defendant No.1 has been forfeited. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, petitioner is defendant No. 1 before the learned trial Court, where the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff, who is prosecuting a for vacant possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No. 31/37/1, area 0.080 hectare out of total 0.038 hectare, situated at Tehsil Keshkal, District Kondagaon. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 04.05.2022 and the defendant No.1 appeared in the proceedings after service of summons on 22.07.2022. though the time was sought for filing of written statement by the defendant No.1, which was granted repeatedly to her, however on 06.07.2023, the counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 could not appear before the learned trial Court and then the right to file written statement has been forfeited and she was proceeded ex parte in the case. Thereafter, on 12.09.2023, the suit itself was dismissed for want of prosecution. On 23.01.2024, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC was allowed and the suit was restored. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC, which was allowed on 04.04.2024 and ex parte order dated 06.07.2023, passed against the defendant No.1 was set aside. Since the right to file written statement of the defendant No.1 has been forfeited and while setting aside the ex parte order dated 06.07.2023, the order with respect to forfeiting the 3 right to file written statement was not recalled, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that instead of forfeiting the right of defendant No.1 to file written statement, the learned trial Court should have recalled the order dated 06.07.2023, by which the right to file written statement was forfeited. Forfeiting the right of defendant No.1 to file written statement would prejudice her defence. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside with respect to forfeiting the right of the defendant No.1 to file written statement and she may be permitted to file the same on the date fixed before the learned trial Court. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 objected and submitted that, the defendant No.1 was negligent in prosecuting her case and despite made her appearance before the learned trial Court on 22.07.2022, she has not filed her written statement despite granting time repeatedly and also given warning about forfeiting her right to file written statement, if she fails to file the same. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly forfeited the right to file written statement of the defendant No.1, which does not require any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The facts of the case, as emerge from the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, appear to be undisputed with respect to the adjournments of the proceedings and directions issued to the 4 defendant No.1 to file written statement. From the order-sheets, it also transpires that on various occasions, the defendant No.1 was granted opportunities to file written statement. Though the defendant No.1 could not file her written statement within the maximum period of 90 days as provided under Order VIII Rule 1 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 v. Raj Kishan Chhabra, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 613. 7. Since the ex parte order against the defendant No.1 has already been set aside by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.04.2024, however in view of the order dated 06.07.2023, she is prevented from filing the written statement, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Kalra (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the learned trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to defendant No.1 (petitioner herein) to file her written statement on record and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 06.07.2023 and 04.04.2024, passed by the learned trial Court are hereby set aside with respect to forfeiting the right to file written statement of the defendant No.1. It has been submitted by the parties that the date of 22.09.2026 is fixed before the learned trial Court. The petitioner/ defendant No.1 is directed to file her written statement on the said date and in such eventuality, the learned trial Court is directed to take the written 5 statement filed by the defendant No.1 on record, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- payable to the plaintiff before the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the learned trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved