Smt. Kamlabai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 5946 MP

                                 1
 IN       THE    HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE
                            BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                      ON THE 12 th OF APRIL, 2023
                   MISC. PETITION No. 4910 of 2021

BETWEEN:-
SMT. KAMLABAI W/O LATE JAYARAMJI, AGED ABOUT
65   YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD AYODHYA
BASTI, JAOURA ROAD, NAMLI AND TEHSIL AND
DISTT.-RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....PETITIONER
(BY MS. SANGITA PARSAI, ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      COLLECTOR RATLAM (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    KEVRAM S/O RAMCHANDRA JI KUMAWAT, AGED
      ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEHOLD
      WORK AYODHYA BASTI JAWRA ROAD NAAMLI
      TEHSIL AND DISTRICT RATLAM (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

                                                          .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMAY BAJAJ , GOVT. ADVOCATE)
(BY SHRI RAJEEV BHATJIWALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.2)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                  ORDER

The present petition is filed against the order dated 16.12.2019 whereby learned trial Court has proceeded the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the CPC which has been allowed and the written statement presented by the petitioner/defendant has not been taken on record.

Ms. Sangeeta Parsai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the written statement was ready but the same was not filed because the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was pending and after decision on the said application the written statement was to be presented but before that the plaintiff filed an application and due to expiry of 90 days from the date of appearance the trial Court has restrained the defendant to file a written statement.

Shri Rajeev Bhatjiwale, leaned counsel for the respondent No.2/plaintiff opposes the aforesaid by submitting that as per the amendment in the CPC the written statement ought to have been filed within 90 days from the date of first appearance, therefore, the trial Court did not commit any error while allowing

the application filed under Order 8 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the CPC.

The judgment passed by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case o f Desh Raj Vs. Balkishan (D) through proposed L.R. MS. Rohini (Civil Appeal No.433 of 2020), arising out of SLP(Civil) No.6217 of 2019 has held that the provision of Order 8 Rule 10 are not mandatory. Even otherwise, the dispute is mainly between the plaintiff & defendant and if the defendant is permitted to contest the suit without the written statement great prejudice will cause. Contrarily, the time has been consumed pursuing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, therefore, this petition is allowed. The written statement be taken on record.

Petition is disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE VS

Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2023.04.17 10:49:24 +05'30'