Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mithila Prasad Tripathi vs Krishnadev Singh on 28 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53860
1 MP-5604-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 28th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5604 of 2025
MITHILA PRASAD TRIPATHI
Versus
KRISHNADEV SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
At the outset, counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue
involved in this petition has already been dealt with by this Court vide order
dated 14.10.2025 passed in M.P. No.5603 of 2025 ( Anantpur Grih Nirman
Shahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs. Krishnadev Singh and others), therefore, the
present petition be disposed of in identical terms.
2. This Court in the case of Anantpur Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti
Maryadit Vs. Krishnadev Singh and others (supra) in M.P.No.5603/2025 has
passed the following order :-
"The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the order dated 16.9.2025 passed by second Civil
Judge. Senior Division, Rewa in RCSA No.241A/2024, whereby
the court below has closed the right of the petitioner defendant
No.5 to file written statement in the suit.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the suit is at the stage of appearance of the defendants and by the
impugned order, the court has directed to submit the process fee
for service on defendant No.7. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the case is at a preliminary stage, however,
the court below has taken a hyper technical view and closed the
right with the observation that the matter has been pending since
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53860
2 MP-5604-2025
last one year some months with observation that the petitioner has
not sought any extension from the court to file written statement,
hence, the right has been closed. It is submitted that the petitioner
may be given an opportunity to submit written statement within a
stipulated time and prayed for quashment of the impugned order.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is apparent from the impugned order that the case is at the
initial stage and from the order-sheet it is revealed that the court
has ordered for submission of process fee for service of notice on
the defendant No.7. It is also seen from the order-sheet that none
of the defendants have submitted their written statements. The
provision of Order VIII CPC is directory and not mandatory as
held by Hon. Apex Court as well as by this Court in catena of
judgments. The rules are handmaid of justice and cannot be a
tyrant in the administration of justice.
5 . The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) thr.
LRs v. P. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706 has held as under :-
"9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of
justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be
allowed to come in the way of the court while doing
substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not
seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts
must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than
relying upon procedural and technical violation. We
should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a
journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice
and the court is required to take appropriate steps to
thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.
Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an
application is made for production of the documents
under sub-rule (3)."
5. Considering the stage of the case and as the plaintiff has
objected orally before the court below, coupled with the fact that
allowing the petitioner/ defendant to submit the written statement
is not going to prejudice rights of either of the parties, this petition
i s disposed of with a direction to the court below to allow the
petitioner to submit written statement within a period of 20 days
from today subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff.
6. In case such written statement is not filed within the stipulated
time, the impugned order shall remain in operation.
3. Accordingly, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the
aforesaid order passed in Anantpur Grih Nirman Shahkari Samiti Maryadit
Vs. Krishnadev Singh and others (supra). The directions issued therein shall
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53860
3 MP-5604-2025
apply mutatis mutandis to the present case as well.
4. The petitioner is directed to file written statement within a period of
seven days from today subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the
plaintiff. In case such written statement is not filed within the stipulated
time, the impugned order shall remain in operation.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
HS
