Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Asati vs Umesh Prasad Patel on 16 April, 2025
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17622
1 MP-807-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 16th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 807 of 2024
SUNIL ASATI
Versus
UMESH PRASAD PATEL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Somit Raizada - Advocate for the petitioner/defendant 3.
Shri Sunesh Tiwari - Advocate for respondent 1.
Shri Sharad Singh Baghel - Advocate for respondent 2.
ORDER
This misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant 3
challenging the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Third Additional Judge to
the Court of First Civil Judge Junior Division, Damoh, in RCSA
No.128/2022 whereby petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC for
taking written statement on record, has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant 3 submits that although
the petitioner's right to file written statement was closed on 21.08.2023, but
thereafter the plaintiff himself moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17
CPC, which was allowed by trial Court vide order dated 05.12.2023 i.e. after
closure of petitioner's right to file written statement. He submits that in these
circumstances, the application filed under Section 151 CPC with the prayer
for taking the written statement on record, ought to have been allowed. With
these submissions he prays for allowing the misc. petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17622
2 MP-807-2024
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 1/plaintiff submits
that the right of petitioner to file written statement was closed vide order
dated 21.08.2023 and without challenging this order, the petitioner moved an
application under Section 151 CPC along with the written statement with the
prayer for taking the same on record, which has rightly been dismissed by
trial Court because after closing right of the petitioner to file written
statement, trial Court had no jurisdiction to take the same on record by
allowing the application under Section 151 CPC. With these submissions, he
submits that the order passed by trial Court does not call for any interference.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Undisputedly, due to non filing of written statement by defendant 3,
his right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 21.08.2023 and
the same was not challenged by him before superior Court, however record
shows that thereafter the defendant 3 filed an application under Section 151
CPC along with written statement, with the prayer for taking written
statement on record, which has been rejected by trial Court with the
observation that in presence of specific provision under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC,
inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised.
6. In the case of Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 613, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order
passed by the High Court on 12.08.2021 whereby delay
of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not
condoned.
3. Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17622
3 MP-807-2024
plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the
Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit
for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule
1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of
this Court reported as 'Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors.'
reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480.
4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the
delay in filing of the written statement could very well
be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of
filing of the written statement is unreasonable.
5. Consequently, we allow the present appeal. The
order passed by the High Court is set aside. The written
statement already filed is taken on record.
6. We do hope that the trial Court shall expedite the
decision of the suit keeping in view the old age of the
plaintiff.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of."
7. In the present case, from the order sheet dated 05.12.2023 available
on record, it is clear that after closure of defendant 3/petitioner's right to file
written statement, the plaintiff himself moved an application under Order 6
Rule 17 of CPC (I.A.No.2/2023), which was allowed by trial Court vide
order dated 05.12.2023 i.e. after closure of defendant 3's rights to file written
statement, which itself was sufficient to accept the prayer of the defendant 3
to take the written statement on record.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in view of decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Kalra (supra), I am of the
considered opinion, that trial Court has committed illegality in dismissing the
application under Section 151 CPC for taking written statement on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:17622
4 MP-807-2024
9. Resultantly, the application under Section 151 CPC stands allowed
and written statement filed by petitioner/defendant 3 is taken on record with
the further direction to trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with
the law.
10. With the aforesaid, this misc. petition is allowed and disposed off.
11. Misc. application(s), pending if any, shall stand closed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
SN
