1 CGHC010341172026 2026:CGHC:40296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1192 of 2026 Kamalnarayan Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Ramsahay Chandrakar Aged About 69 Years R/o Bhawani Nagar, Gali No. 01, Govind Bhawan, Ward No. 43, Basantpur, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shail Chandrakar W/o Late Shri Lekhram Chandrakar R/o Budhapara, Near Danibada, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Navin Chandrkar S/o Shri Lekhram Chandrakar R/o Budhapara, Near Danibada, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Rachna Chandrakar D/o Shri Lekhraj Chandrakar R/o Budhapara, Near Danibada, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajkumar Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Ramsahay Chandrakar R/o Budhapara, Near Danibada, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 15/09/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and propriety Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.09.18 18:09:23 +0530 2 of the proceedings/order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the learned 10th Additional Judge to the Court of learned First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 279-A/2025, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pointing out the failure of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to file their written statement despite repeated opportunities, has not been duly considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order, and thereafter the learned Trial Court proceeded to take the written statement filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 16.03.2026 on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 279-A/2025, instituted on 01.08.2025, which is pending before the learned 10th Additional Judge to the Court of the First Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, seeking declaration of ownership on the basis of adverse possession and permanent injunction in respect of the land Khasra No. 533, admeasuring 0.4200 hectare, situated at Village Paloud. It is submitted that the petitioner has pleaded continuous, open and uninterrupted possession over the disputed portion of the land for approximately 25 years, pursuant to the possession allegedly handed over to him by Late Shri Lekhram Chandrakar, who was jointly recorded with Respondent No. 4. After the death of Late Shri Lekhram Chandrakar in January, 2024, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 initiated mutation proceedings before the learned Naib Tahsildar, in which the petitioner subsequently appeared and filed his objection on 04.06.2025. Apprehending interference with his 3 possession, the petitioner instituted the aforesaid civil suit and also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. 3. He would further submit that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 entered appearance before the learned Trial Court on 03.09.2025, but despite repeated opportunities granted on 17.09.2025, 10.10.2025, 30.10.2025, 18.11.2025, 04.12.2025, 17.01.2026, 28.01.2026 and 09.02.2026, they failed to file their written statement. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC on 27.02.2026, specifically pointing out the repeated defaults and seeking appropriate orders in accordance with law. Instead of considering the said application, the learned Trial Court granted further opportunity to Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who thereafter filed their written statement on 16.03.2026. The subsequent filing of the written statement could not, by itself, dispense with consideration of the application dated 27.02.2026, particularly when the said application had already been filed on account of the respondents' failure to comply with the opportunities granted by the Court. He would further submit that the grievance of the petitioner is not that a decree ought to have been passed automatically under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, nor does the petitioner seek adjudication of the title or adverse-possession claim in the present proceedings. His limited grievance is that a material application affecting the procedural rights of the parties has neither been considered nor decided by a reasoned and speaking order, and the learned Trial Court has proceeded further on the basis of the belated written statement without dealing with the objection raised by the petitioner through his application dated 27.02.2026. It is therefore 4 submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and that such non-consideration has caused procedural prejudice to the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays that the learned Trial Court be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 27.02.2026 under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC by a reasoned and speaking order and thereafter proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents filed along with the petition and gone through the pleadings. 5. On consideration of the pleadings and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has mainly questioned the non- consideration of his application dated 27.02.2026 filed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. However, the order sheet placed on record does not disclose that the said application was taken on record or that any specific order was passed thereon on 27.02.2026. More importantly, the order sheet dated 16.03.2026, on which date Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are stated to have filed their written statement, has not been brought on record by the petitioner. Consequently, this Court is unable to ascertain from the material available whether, on 16.03.2026, the written statement was taken on record without considering the petitioner's application dated 27.02.2026, or whether any order was passed dealing with the said application. In the absence of the relevant order sheet, the allegation that the learned Trial Court deliberately bypassed or rejected the petitioner's application without consideration cannot be conclusively examined in the present proceedings. 5 6. It is also relevant to note that the written statement of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has admittedly been filed and taken on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri, (2019) 17 SCC 214, while considering the scheme of Order VIII Rules 6A, 9 and 10 of CPC, has held that Order VIII Rule 10 confers discretion upon the Court in dealing with failure to file the written statement within the time permitted and that the provision does not contemplate an automatic consequence in every case; the Court has discretion to permit a belated written statement in an appropriate case. Thus, once the written statement has already been taken on record, the mere remand of the matter for consideration of the petitioner's application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC would not, in the facts of the present case, serve any fruitful purpose, particularly when the record placed before this Court does not establish the precise order or proceedings undertaken by the learned Trial Court on 16.03.2026. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that no effective purpose would be achieved by directing the learned Trial Court to reconsider the application dated 27.02.2026 at this stage. The petitioner has not placed the order sheet dated 16.03.2026, which is the material document for determining whether the written statement was accepted without consideration of the pending application. Further, the written statement having already been taken on record, setting aside the subsequent proceedings or remitting the matter merely for consideration of the said application would result in an academic exercise and unnecessary delay in the trial. The present petition, 6 therefore, does not warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. 9. It is, however, observed that whenever any application is filed by either of the parties during the pendency of a proceeding, the same ought to be duly taken on record by specifically mentioning its filing in the order sheet. Thereafter, such application, if it requires adjudication, should be considered and decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law, by passing an appropriate and, wherever necessary, reasoned order. Proper recording of such procedural steps in the order sheet is essential to ensure clarity regarding the applications filed by the parties and the orders passed thereon, and also to avoid any ambiguity at a later stage. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok