1 2026:CGHC:17306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 670 of 2025 1 - Jaimata Traders Godhanpur Proprietor Rajendra Bahadur Singh, S/o Late Radhamohan Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Godhanpur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Vivek Traders Godhanpur Proprietor- Smt. Sandhya Pandey, W/o Shri Vivek Kumar Pandey, Through General Power of Attorney Vivek Kumar Pandey Son of Shri Tirath Raj Pandey, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Godhanpur, Ambikapur, District Sarguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Krishna Tandon, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 15.04. 202 6 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Second Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambikapur, District Surguja, in Civil Suit No.6-B/2021 whereby his application for permission to file written statement has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is defendant before the trial court. The respondent filed a suit against the 2 petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,33,004/-. It is pleaded in the plaint that the parties were having commercial dealing of building material and after adjustment of their account, an amount of Rs.3,33,004/- remain outstanding against the defendant as on 31.03.2021. Despite repeated request made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the said amount and then he filed the civil suit on 28.08.2021. The summons were served upon the defendant and he made appearance on 15.03.2023 before the trial court and sought time to file written statement. Though various opportunities were granted to the defendant to file his written statement, but in absence of filing of his written statement, vide order dated 13.12.2023, his right to file written statement have been forfeited. He would further submit that on 06.02.2024 the defendant filed his application for permission to file written statement and to recall the order dated 13.12.2023 along with his written statement, however, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 08.01.2025 the application for permission to file written statement has been rejected on the ground that despite sufficient opportunity granted to the defendant he has failed to file his written statement within stipulated time and therefore his right to file written statement have rightly been forfeited. He would further submit that filing of written statement provided under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC within a maximum period of 90 days from the date of service of summons is not mandatory, but it is directory. Instead of forfeiting the right of the petitioner to file written statement, the trial court may impose appropriate cost and adjourn the proceeding for filing of written statement. Forfeiting the right to file written statement would prejudice the defence of the defendant. The defendant has already filed the written statement which is available in the file and there is no delay tactic in the trial of the case. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for a direction to the trial court to take the written statement of defendant on record and to proceed further with the suit. In 3 support of his submission, he would rely upon the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in case of Bharat Kalra Vs. Rajkishan Chabra in Civil Appeal No.3788 of 2022. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the trial court has rightly passed the order which needs no interference. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The facts of case are not in dispute as the petitioner appeared in the proceeding before the trial court on 15.03.2023 and his right to file written statement have been forfeited on 13.12.2023 and further that on 06.02.2024 he made an application for permission to file written statement. Though the petitioner could not file his written statement within the maximum period of 90 days as provided under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, however, the Supreme Court in case of Bharat Kalra (Supra) has held that the time limit for filing of written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the earlier judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Kailash Vs. Nanku & Others, 2005(4)SCC 480. 6. Since the petitioner has already filed his written statement before the trial court which is available in the record of the trial court as observed in the impugned order dated 08.01.2025, keeping in view the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Bharat Kalra (Supra), this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the trial court is directed to take the written statement of the petitioner/defendant on record and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.12.2023 and 08.01.2025 passed by the trial court are set aside and the trial court is directed to take written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant on record and to proceed with the 4 suit in accordance with law. The petitioner/defendant is directed to pay a cost of Rs.3000/- payable to the plaintiff before the trial court. 8. Since the suit of plaintiff is pending since, 2021, the trial court is further directed to expedite the trial of suit and decide the same as early as possible after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder