Chattisgarh High Court
Dhurandhar Builders And ... vs Vijay Varhadpandey on 22 July, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 455 of 2022
1. Dhurandhar Builders and Developers through Its Partner Durgesh
Dhurandhar, S/o Keshav Dhurandhar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Near
State Bank, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Shailesh Dhurandhar S/o Keshav Dhurandhar Aged About 38 Years R/o
Near State Bank, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Keshav Dhurandhar S/o Late Mahendra Dhurandhar Aged About 72
Years R/o Near State Bank, Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
That before the revisional Court due to typographical mistake Dhurandhar
Builders and Developers have been shown though 3 partners which is not
permissible and therefore Dhurandhar Builder and Developers have filed
the petition through one partner and other partners are challenging the
same in their capacity as Partner
4. Smt. Jeevanlata Sharma W/o Naveen Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o
Shyam Kunj, Rohnipuram Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.)
5. Smt. Rambati Sahu W/o Late Kishan Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o
Near Dagania Talab, Dagania, Tehsil and District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
6. Subhash Sahu S/o Late Kishan Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Near
Dagania Talab, Dagania, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh
7. Vivek Sahu S/o Late Kishan Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Near
Dagania Talab, Dagania, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Vijay Varhadpandey S/o Shri Shivaji Rao Varhadpandey Aged About 62
Years R/o Behind Shitla Mandir, Aashirwad Bhawan, Dagania Raipur
Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Babla Sahu S/o ShriKhamman Sahu, R/o. Heerapur, Jarvoy, Tehsil and
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Pramod Sahu S/o Pardeshi Ram Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village
Dunda, Police Station Sejbahar, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.)
4. Bahur Sahu S/o Pardeshi Ram Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
Dunda, Police Station Sejbahar, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Smt. Thagiya Bai W/o Late Manwa Sahu Aged About 70 Years, R/o Near
Dagania Talab, Dagania, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.)
6. Rajkumari Sahu D/o Late Kishan Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o Near
Dagania Talab, Dagania, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh
7. Tulsi Sahu D/o Late Kishan Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Near Dagania
Talab, Dagania, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh
8. Sushma Sahu D/o Late Kishan Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Near
Dagania Talab, Dagania Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2
9. Hemlata Sahu D/o Late Kishan Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Near
Dagania Talab, Dagania, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
10. Durga Sahu D/o Late Kishan Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Near
Dagania Talab, Dagania, Tehsil and District Raipur Chhattisgarh
11. Smt. Sukhbati Bai W/o Late Bhukhan Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o
Near Daganiatalab Dagania Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
12. Sewakram Sahu S/o Late Bhukhan Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Near
Daganiatalab Dagania Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
13. Girdharilal Sahu S/o Late Bhukhan Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Near
Daganiatalab Dagania Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
14. Smt. Bhulibai Sahu D/o Late Bhukhan Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o
Near Daganiatalab Dagania Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
15. Smt. Parvatibai Sahu D/o Late Bhukhan Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o
Near Daganiatalab Dagania Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
16. Joint Dirctor Town and Country Planning, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
17. Presiding Officer Ceiling/Collector, Collector Office, Raipur, Tehsil and
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
18. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue Department Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh
19. Tehsildar Raipur Office of Tehsildar, Raipur G.E. Road, Raipur Tehsil and
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
22.07.2022
1. By way of this petition, the Petitioner/Plaintiff is questioning the propriety of
the order dated 04.07.2022 passed by learned Eleventh Civil Judge Class-
2, Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 232-A/2019, whereby the application filed
by the Petitioners under Section 151 CPC has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would submit that the Civil
Judge has rejected the application to bring the written statement on record
vide order dated 25.01.2020 and thereafter, on 04.07.2022 the petitioners
have moved another application under Section 151 CPC for taking written
statement on record which has also been rejected by the learned trial Court.
He would further submit that the rejection of application for taking written
statement on record is amount to denial of opportunity to defend the case
properly, therefore, learned trial court may be directed that the application
filed under Section 151 CPC may be allowed and the written statement may
kindly be taken on record. In support of his argument he referred the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Kalra vs. Raj
Kishan Chabra 2022 SCC online SC 613.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned
order with utmost circumspection.
4. As held in Bharat Kalra (supra), provisions are merely directory and the
court can permit filing of written statement beyond the period of 90 days.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the issue of delay in filing the
written statement as per provisions of CPC, reiterated the view taken in the
case of Kailash v. Nankhu and others 2005 (4) SCC 480 and has held
that delay in filing of the written statement can be very well compensated
with cost but denying the benefit of filing the written statement is
unreasonable, considering the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the judgment reported in the matter of Kailash (supra), I am inclined to
allow the petition with condition that the petitioner shall pay cost of Rs.
7,500/- to the respondents. As the case is fixed for hearing on 25.07.2022
on that date the written statement has filed before the trial Court will be
taken on record and considered and thereafter the trial Court will further
proceed in the matter, it is made clear that unless the cost is paid to the
respondents, the trial Court shall not consider the written statement filed by
the respondents.
5. It is made clear that in absence of respondent this order is passed,
therefore, the respondents are at liberty to file application for modification of
order if exigency so arises for them.
6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
JUDGE
Santosh
