( 2026:JHHC:9718 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6651 of 2012 1(a). Bhumneshwari Devi wife of late Sahdeo Prasad Yadav 1(b). Mohan Mahto son of late Sahdeo Prasad Yadav 1 (c) Shaligram Yadav, son of late Sahdeo Prasad Yadav 1(d) Lutan Prasad Yadav, son of late Sahdeo Prasad Yadav All Resident of village Barmasia, P.O. Dahijore, P.S. Mohanpur, District- Deoghar 1(e) Khiwidati Devi wife of late Ramesh Yadav resident of village Baridih, P.O. Tapovan P.S. Kunda, District-Deoghar. 2. Nakul Yadav, son of late Bisheshwar Mahto 3. Shivnarayan Yadav, so nof late Bisheshwar Mahto 4. Bhubnehswar Mahto, son of late Kaila Mahto 5. Jagarnath Mahto, son of late Kaila Mahto 6. Laxman Mahto @ Laxman Pd. Yadav 7. Dhaneshwar Mahto son of late Tuni Mahto 8. Baleshwar Mahto, son of late Tuni Mahto All residents of village Barmasia, P.O. Dahijore Camp, P.S. Mohanpur, District-Deoghar ……………Petitioners Versus 1. Uma Devi widow of Late Ram Swaroop Mahto daughter of Late Brishpati Mahto, resident of Williams Town, P.O. +P.S. Deoghar, District - Deoghar. 2. Rabari Devi daughter of Late Bisheshwar Mahto wife of Sabo Mahto, resident of Village Jardha, P.O. + P.S. Taljhari, District - Dumka. 3. Sumitra Devi daughter of Late Bisheshwar Mahto wife of Gangadhar Mahto, resident of Village Kharna, P.O. -Kothia, P.S. Saraiyahat, District - Dumka. 4. Nuna Devi daughter of Late Kaila Mahto wife of Jogan @Anand Mahto, resident of Village Kuridanga, P.O. Narayanpur, P.S. Rampurhat, District Birbhum (West Bengal). 5. Saraswati Devi daughter of Late Kaila Mahto wife of Jagarnath Mahto, resident of Village Kusumdih, P.O. + P.S. Kunda, District - Deoghar. 6. Sudama Devi daughter of Late Tuni Mahto wife of Kanhai Mahto, resident of Village Salboni, P.O. Narayanpur, P.S. Rampurhat, District - Birbhum (West Bengal). 7. Gajmatia Devi daughter of Late Tuni Mahto wife of Mahadev Mahto, P.O., resident of Village- Siyatanr, Deopur, P.O. Deopur, P.S. Jasidih District - Deoghar. 8. Leelawati Devi widow of Late Babu Lal Mahto. 9. Jagdish Mahto son of Late Babu Lal Mahto. 8 and 9 resident of Village Barmasia, P.O. Dahijore Camp, P.S.Mohanpur, District - Deoghar. 10. Sabo Devi daughter of Late Babu Lal Mahto wife of Kamal Mahto, resident of Village Kothia Janaki, P.O. -Tapovan, P.S. Mohanpur, District- Deoghar 11. Huro Devi, daughter of late Babulal Mahto, wife of Kamdeo Mahto resident of Village Karholia, P.S. Tapoban, P.S. Mohanpur, P.O. Tapoban, District - Deoghar. 12. Sushila Devi daughter of Babu Lal Mahto wife of Manu Mahto resident of Village Pathri, P.O. Kharagdiha, P.S. Mohanpur, District - Deoghar. 13. Kaushaliya Devi wife of Late Ishani Mahto, resident of Village Barmasia, P.Ο. Dahijor Camp, P.S. Mohanpur, District - Deoghar. 14. Dubni Devi daughter of Late Ishani Mahto wife of Aklu Mahto, resident of Village Mohna Kanari, P.O.-Tapoban. P.S. Mohanpur, District - Deoghar. ( 2026:JHHC:9718 ) 2 15. Kushmi Devi daughter of Late Ishani Mahto wife of Pheku Mahto, resident of Village Baijukura, P.O. Baijukura, P.S. -Sarwan, District - Deoghar. 16. Shobha Devi daughter of Late Ishani Mahto wife of Nago Mahto, resident of Village Chottajanaki, P.O. -Tapoban, P.S. Mohanpur, District - Deoghar. 17. Ashoka Devi daughter of Late Ishani Mahto wife of Pairoo Mahto resident of Village Dhakodih, P.O. Tapoban, P.S. Kunda, District - Deoghar. 18. Aruna Devi daughter of Late Ishani Mahto wife of Dhaneshwar Mahto, resident of Village Jaria, P.O. Kharagdiha, P.S. Mohanpur, District - Deoghar, 19. Jairam Mahto son of Late Pairoo Mahto @ Rameshwar Mahto, resident of Village Barmasia, P.O. Dahijore Camp P.S.Mohanpur, District - Deoghar. 20. Zeera Devi daughter of Pairoo Mahto @ Rameshwar Mahto, resident of Village Mahuwatanr, P.O. Sarwan, P.S. Sarwan, District - Deoghar. 21. Jhalia Devi daughter of Late Brihaspati Mahto, resident of Village Sonbadia Dumaria, P.O. Ghormara, P.S. Mohanpur, District - Deoghar. 22. Radha Devi daughter of Late Brihaspati Mahto wife of Late Ramswaroop Mahto, resident of Mohalla - Refugee Colony Jhousagarhi, P.O. Deoghar. ...... … Respondents -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Prateek Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Advocate 10/ 07.04.2026: Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudahry, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. This petition has been filed for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 5th, Deoghar in Title (P) Suit No. 97 of 2011 whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition dated 14.08.2012 filed on behalf of the petitioners for acceptance of the written statement filed on their behalf. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff/respondent no.1 had filed Title Suit No. 77/2010 before the Settlement Officer, Deoghar which was subsequently transferred to the court of Civil Judge, Deoghar under section 5 of the Santhal Paragana Tenancy Act on 15.03.2011 and the same was registered as Title Partition Suit No. 97 of 2011. He submits that in the said suit the petitioners were noticed and direction has been issued ( 2026:JHHC:9718 ) 3 to appear on 29.05.2012. He then submits that on that date the petitioners appeared and filed vakalatnama however written statement was not filed and written statement was filed on 14.08.2012. He further submits that after the appearance only one date lapsed and thereafter on second date the petitioners have filed the written statement however, the learned court has rejected the petition on the ground that it has been filed after 90 days and it is barred in the light of Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. He also submits that during pendency of the writ petition the said suit was dismissed for default however, the said suit was restored. He submits that the said provision under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C is not mandatory and that is directory and if the sufficient cause is there, the written statement for the interest of justice may kindly be allowed to be accepted by the learned court. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner has appeared on that day and he has not prayed extension of time for filing written statement and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the impugned order. He has argued that the section 5 of the Limitation Act is not attracted in light of the order VIII of Rule 1 C.P.C. On these grounds, he submits that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. It is an admitted position that the suit was instituted by the respondent no.1 in which the petitioners herein have been noticed and pursuant to that filed vakalatnama on 29.05.2012. Thereafter one date lapsed and thereafter on second date i.e. 14.08.2012 the petitioners filed the written statement praying therein for accepting the written statement however, the learned court has rejected the petition on the ground that it has been filed after 90 days which is barred under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. 6. The provision of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC enables the Court to extend the period of 30 days to 90 days from the date of summons for filing the ( 2026:JHHC:9718 ) 4 written statement for the sufficient reasons. No doubt the word ‘shall not be later than 90 days’ in the proviso of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC do not take away the power of the court to accept the written statement beyond that time as the nature of the provision is procedural and directory and not a part of substantial law but the time can be extended only in the exceptionally hard cases. In such a situation, the onus upon the defendants is of a higher degree to plead and satisfactorily demonstrate the valid reason for not filing the written statement within 30 days. However, in the case in hand the learned court has not debarred the petitioners to file written statement and the written statement was already filed on 14.08.2012. 7. It has been pointed out that in the meantime the suit was dismissed and subsequently the said suit was restored. It is well settled that the said Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory as has been held in several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and a reference may be made to the case of “ Kailash V. Nankhu and others” reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. 8. From the date of appearance by way of filing vakalatnama it has already filed within 90 days and in the interest of justice written statement already filed by the petitioners is required to be accepted by the learned court and proceed further in accordance with law. 9. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the impugned order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) 5th, Deoghar in Title (P) Suit No. 97 of 2011 is set aside. The learned court will accept the written statement filed by the petitioners/defendant no.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13 and 14. 10. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Dt.07.04.2026 Satyarthi/A.F.R ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)