2026:JHHC:6002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3738 of 2019 ------- 1. Sabera Bibi, aged about 44 years, wife of Mansoor Sheikh, Resident of village Pranpur, P.O.-Piarpur, P.S.- Radhanagar, Dist. Sahibganj. 2. Sarjahan Bibi, aged about 42 years, Wife of Peskar Sheikh, Resident of village Pranpur, P.O.-Pairpur, P.S.- Radhanagar, Dist. Sahibganj. 3. Sainoor Bibi, aged about 40 years, Wife of Khalek Sheikh, Resident of Village Dakhin, Palasgachhi, P.O. & P.S.-Palasgachhi, Dist. Sahibganj. 4. Sohar Bano Bibi, aged about 60 years, Wife of Badsu Sheikh, Resident of village Pranpur, P.O.-Pairpur, P.S.- Radhanagar, Dist. Sahibganj. …… Petitioner Versus 1. Maimul Sheikh, son of late Sadek Sheikh resident of village Pairpur, P.S. Rahanagar, Dist. Sahibganj. …..Respondent ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Adv. ------- 15/Dated:04.02.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 01.04.2019 passed in Original Suit No.17 of 2017; whereby the petition for acceptance of written statement already filed has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 15.02.2018 passed in the aforesaid Suit, whereby the petitioners have been debarred from filing any written statement. 2. Briefly stated, vide order dated 15.02.2018, the learned trial court has debarred the petitioners from filing any written statement because of the delay and as per the provision enshrined under Order 8, Rule 1, which 2026:JHHC:6002 2 stipulates the provision of filing of written statement. However, the petitioners have filed the written statement. Therefore, another order was passed on 01.04.2019 by the learned Trial Court, whereby acceptance of written statement has been rejected. 3. Mr. Md. Asadul Haque, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that if the written statement will not be accepted, then it will prejudice the petitioners from forcing their case. 4. Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Ld. counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that earlier the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement on 15.02.2018 and thereafter again he has filed a written statement which was rejected on 01.04.2019. He further submits that the written statement which was filed subsequently after the order dated 29.05.2018 was filed without any affidavit, as such the claim of the petitioner should be rejected. 5. The limited question before this Court is that as to whether the petitioner should be given opportunity for filing fresh written statement or the written statement which was filed without any affidavit can be accepted in the background of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. In order to decide this issue Order 8 Rule 1 is extracted herein below:- 2026:JHHC:6002 3 “Written statement. The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence [Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the Court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons On expiry of one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right of file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.]].” 6. After going through the aforesaid provision it is clear that the defendant shall file their written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summon on him and if he fails to file the same, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day as may be prescribed by the Court for the reason to be recorded, but the same shall not be entertained after an expiry of 90 days from the service of summon. Thus, in other words, the provision as stipulated in Order 8 Rule 1, it is evidently clear that normally the time for filing the written statement is 30 days. However, with the petition for condonation of delay, it can be accepted, but the same cannot be accepted after the expiry of 90 days. 7. The aforesaid issue as to whether Order 8 Rule 1 is mandatory or directory, it has been deliberated in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480, para 46(iv) wherein it has been held by Hon’ble 2026:JHHC:6002 4 Apex Court that Order 8 Rule 1 is not mandatory. For brevity para 46(iv) of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:- “46(iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the court to extend the time. Though the language of the proviso to Rule 1 Order 8 CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non- compliance. The provision being in the domain of the procedural law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is not completely taken away.” 8. Looking to the interest of justice of both the parties, especially the fact that when written statement itself is not filed then the defendants will certainly face difficulty in enforcing their grounds of defence. 9. Having regard to the rival submissions and also judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the order passed on 15.02.2018 and 01.04.2019 requires interference. However, since the petitioner has delayed the suit for whatever reason, the respondent herein must be compensated for that. 10. Accordingly, interest of justice would suffice by quashing both the orders. Hence, the order dated 01.04.2019 and 15.02.2018, is hereby, quashed and set aside. 2026:JHHC:6002 5 11. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court who shall either allow the petitioner to file fresh written statement or to file a simple affidavit by giving reference of the written statement already filed beyond the time of limitation, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent herein. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s if any, also closed. Interim stay is also vacated. (Deepak Roshan, J.) February 04, 2026 Uploaded on 12/03/2026 Fahim/-