Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rekha Singh Gahlot vs Alpna on 2 September, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20200
1 MP-4115-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4115 of 2025
REKHA SINGH GAHLOT
Versus
ALPNA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajendra Jain - learned Counsel for petitioner.
ORDER
The present misc. petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by petitioner (defendant No.4) assailing the order dated
14th of July, 2025 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Seondha, District
Datia, whereby the application filed by plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 of
CPC has been allowed by rejecting prayer of defendant No.4 for filing
written statement on the ground of delay of 903 days, has been rejected.
2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of petition as narrated
therein are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction. During pendency of suit, an application was filed by
respondent No.1 plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC pleading that
defendant No.4 therein who has been been made as a party, has not filed
written statement/reply and time for filing written statement/reply has been
expired after 90 days. It is further pleaded that defendant No.4 appeared in
the Court on 04-10-2022 due to which she has got sufficient opportunity of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20200
2 MP-4115-2025
filing written statement/reply, therefore, opportunity to defendant no.4 to file
written statement/reply has come to an end on the ground of delay of 903
days.
3. Defendant No.4 filed her reply to the application filed by plaintiff
stating that she is the wife of defendant No.1 Sitaram and plaintiff has not
supplied copy of amendment of plaint, due to which written statement/reply
could not be filed within time and prayed for taking her written
statement/reply.
4. The trial Court vide impugned order rejected the prayer of defendant
No.4 on the ground of delay of 903 days, holding that written
statement/reply was presented at the stage of plaintiffs' evidence although
defendant No.1 who is husband of defendant No.4 has already presented his
written statement.
5. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Gupta vs.
Sharma Advertising reported in 2025(1) MPLJ 610, has held as under:-
'' Procedure is handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical
hurdles shall not be allowed to come in a way of Court while
doing substantial justice, if procedural violation does not seriously
cause prejudice to adversary party, Court must lean towards doing
substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and
technical violation.''
7. In the present case, the trial Court has rejected has rejected prayer of
defendant No.4- petitioner herein for taking her written statement/reply on
the ground of delay of 903 days and it is clear that the suit is at the initial
stage, therefore, merely on the ground of delay, the trial Court has rejected
the prayer of defendant No.4- petitioner herein for taking her written
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:20200
3 MP-4115-2025
statement/reply on record, which is incorrect in the eyes of law and the
impugned order passed by the Trial Court regarding rejection of prayer of
defendant No.4- petitioner for taking her written statement/reply, deserves to
be set aside.
8. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court holds that prayer
of defendant No.4- petitioner for taking her written statement/reply on record
deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the trial Court is directed to place
on record the written statement/ reply submitted by defendant No.4 on record
and thereafter, proceed with the matter in accordance with law on the basis
of evidence of both the parties, which would come on record.
9. With aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. No
order to costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
