ORDER :

This order shall dispose of WP (227) No. 310 of 2022 and WP (227) No. 325 of 2022.

WP (227) No. 325 of 2022 -

1. The present petition arises out of the order dated 13.05.2022 whereby the learned Xth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, C.G. has closed the opportunity of the petitioner/defendant no. 1 to file written statement.

2. The respondent no. 1/Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit on 11.01.2021 against the petitioner/defendant no. 1 claiming therein declaration of sale deed dated 22.02.2010 as null and void thereby declaring the respondent no.1/plaintiff as owner of the suit property situated at P.H.No. 20/22, Khasra No. 54/169, Lingiyadih, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, admeasuring 2400 sq. ft., for its vacant possession and perpetual injunction. The plaintiff further pleaded that he purchased the suit land from Smt. Shanti Devi Meghani on 29.07.1999 through a registered sale deed. He was working as Sub- Engineer at different places and on 20.8.2018 when he visited the suit property; he found the possession of defendant no. 1 over such property. Thereafter, he obtained the copy of sale deed only then he came to know that sale deed has been executed in favor of the petitioner/defendant no.1 by impersonation. The Civil Suit was registered as C.S. No. 81-A/2021, however, despite several opportunities, the petitioner/defendant no. 1 didn’t file the written statement within prescribed time, therefore, on 15.09.2021 the respondent no. 1/plaintiff preferred an application under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC for closing the opportunity of the petitioner/defendant no. 1 to file written statement. Subsequently, in the month of May, 2022 the petitioner/defendant no. 1 preferred an application under Section 10 read with 151 of CPC for staying the further proceeding of aforesaid Civil Suit inter alia on the ground that certain criminal proceeding has also been drawn against the petitioner/defendant no. 1 on the same set of facts upon which the Civil Suit rests.

3. The learned trial court vide order 13.05.2022 decided the application of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff holding that the petitioner/defendant no. 1 is appearing in the said matter since 24.03.2021 and several opportunities were granted to him for filing the written statement. It was also observed that on 04.10.2021 the earlier presiding officer of the court while deciding the application of the respondent no.1/plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC, had granted last opportunity to the petitioner/defendant no.1 for filing the written statement. On 09.05.2022 also, last opportunity was granted to him for filing the written statement and day of 13.05.2022 was fixed as the date of next hearing, however, despite six opportunities and after lapse of 14 months, the petitioner/defendant no. 1 is seeking time to file written statement. Considering the delaying tactics used by the petitioner/defendant no. 1, the learned trial court allowed the application of the respondent no.1/plaintiff and closed the opportunity of the petitioner/defendant no. 1 for filing written statement and further, fixed the matter for framing of the issues therein.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the learned trial court is cryptic and it erred in closing the right of the petitioner for filing written statement. He would also submit that the learned court below ought to have considered the application of the petitioner filed under Section 10 read with 151 of CPC for staying the further proceedings of the suit.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 would support the order impugned and submit that despite availing several opportunities the petitioner has still not complied with the orders of the learned court below and consequently failed in filing the written statement.

6. I have learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.

7. For the purpose of discussion it would be apposite to go through the