Smt. Preyasha @ Nidhi Jain vs Smt. Chetna Jain
2022 Latest Caselaw 2784 Chatt

                                                    1


                       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                             Order Sheet
                                       W.P.(227) No. 89 of 2019
                        Smt. Preyasha @ Nidhi Jain Versus Smt. Chetna Jain
                                   WP227/112/2019,WP227/96/2019


27.04.2022          Shri Rajat Agrawal, counsel appears along with Ms. Saloni Verma,

             counsel for the Petitioner.

                    Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsel for the Respondents.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

Order dictated in open Court. Signed and dated separately.

Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 89 of 2019  Smt. Preyasha @ Nidhi Jain W/o Shri Manish Jain Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 6,naya Sharafa Bazar Main Road, balaghat, tahsil And District Balaghat Madhya Pradesh. ---- Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Chetna Jain W/o Late Manoj Jain Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 27, kailash Nagar Rajnandgaon, tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

2. Ku. Twinkle Jain D/o Late Manoj Jain Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 27, kailash Nagar Rajnandgaon, tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

3. Ku. Priyanka Jain D/o Late Manoj Aged About 16 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chetna Jain W/o Late Manoj Jain R/o Ward No. 27, kailash Nagar Rajnandgaon, tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

4. Risabh Jain S/o Late Manoj Jain Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chetna Jain W/o Late Manoj Jain R/o Ward No. 27, kailash Nagar Rajnandgaon, tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.

5. Abhishek Jain S/o Late Manoj Jain Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Chetna Jain W/o Late Manoj Jain R/o Ward No. 27, kailash Nagar Rajnandgaon, tehsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

For Petitioner: Shri Rajat Agrawal, Advocate appears along with Ms. Saloni Verma, Advocate.

For Respondents: Shri Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board 27.04.2022

1. By way of this petition, the Petitioner/Plaintiff is questioning the

propriety of the order dated 11.10.2018 passed by learned District Judge,

Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.8-B/16, whereby the application filed by

the Petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, while inviting attention to

the provision prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, submits that since the

written statement has not been filed as per the stipulated period, therefore, the

learned trial Court ought to have closed the right of the Defendants for filing

the written statement and ought to have pronounced the judgment as per the

provision prescribed under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC. Having failed to do so, the

learned trial Court has committed an illegality in rejecting the application filed

under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondents/Defendants, while opposing the aforesaid contention, submits

that since the written statement has already been filed on 28.07.2018 and that

by taking note of the provision prescribed therein, which is not mandatory in

nature, the Court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the said

application.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire

papers annexed with this petition carefully.

5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the written statement was

filed on 28.07.2018 though beyond the period prescribed in Order 8 Rule 1 of

CPC, but while taking note of the fact that the said provision is not mandatory

in nature as held in the matter of Kailash vs. Nanhku and Others reported in

(2005) 4 SCC 480, the Court below has, therefore, not committed any illegality

in declining to close the right of the Defendants for filing the written statement

as prayed for by the Plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. In view thereof, I

do not find any substance in this petition so as to call for any interference in

the order impugned.

6. The petition is accordingly dismissed at admission stage itself. No order

as to costs. Sd/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Nikita