[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Raikwar vs Sant Kumar Chouksey on 7 January, 2026
1 MP-7527-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 7527 of 2025
DHARMENDRA RAIKWAR
Versus
SANT KUMAR CHOUKSEY AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Singh - Advocate for the petitioners.
ORDER
By way of present petition, challenge is made to order dated
09.09.2025 passed by the trial Court thereby closing the right of the
petitioner/defendant No. 1 to file written statement on the ground he
appeared through his counsel on 08.08.2023 but despite that no written
statement had been filed by him till that date.
2. By the same order dated 09.09.2025, the trial court closed right of
the defendants No. 1, 5, 13 and 14 to file written statement. The defendant
No. 13 had also appeared in the suit on 08.08.2023. The defendant No. 13
had filed M.P. No. 5670/2025 and this Court has set-aside the order dated
09.09.2025 granting opportunity to the defendant No. 13 to file written
statement and disposed of the petition in the following terms:-
"The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the
order dated 9.9.2025 passed by second Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur in RCSA
No.638/2023, whereby the court below has closed the right of the petitioner
/defendant No.13 to file written statement in the suit.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is at
2 MP-7527-2025
the stage of filing written statements by the defendants. 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 counsel for the petitioner /defendant has already
entered appearance on 8.8.2023 but has neither filed the written statement nor
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 case is at the stage of filing written
statements by the defendants. 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)."
6. Considering the stage of the case and as the plaintiff has not objected 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 is 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.
7. In case such written statement is not filed within the stipulated time, the
impugned order shall remain in operation."
3. As the petitioner is similarly situated and he also appeared before
the trial court on the same date and his right was closed on the same day, this
petition is disposed of in similar terms and the petitioner is granted liberty to
3 MP-7527-2025
file written statement within a period of 20 days from today subject to
payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- to be paid to the plaintiff.
4. The petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
