ORDER :

1. This petition is filed by legal heirs of defendant No.15 challenging herein the legality and propriety of the order dated 22.01.2020, passed in Civil Suit No. 76- A/13 by IInd Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur, Surguja, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 22 Rule 4(2) read with section 151 of the CPC for taking written statement on record, has been dismissed.

2. The case in nutshell is that, original plaintiff namely Ramdev filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title, partition and permanent injunction. The plaintiff and defendants are legal heirs of late Ishwar and Raghuwar Sahu. The plaintiff pleaded that the property detailed in Schedule-A annexed with the plaint situated at Village Batwahi, Tahsil- Lundra, District- Sarguja (CG) was recorded in name of Raghuvir Sahu and late Ishwar Sahu during Sarguja State Settlement and later on, it was partitioned between them. Revenue records were also corrected. It is also pleaded that late Ishwar Sahu during his lifetime, partitioned his share mentioned in Schedule-B & C appended with the plaint amongst his sons. The plaintiff further pleaded that the land bearing Survey No. 542/2, 1438/2, 1438/5 fell in his share. The defendant Nos.1, 14 and 16 by playing fraud, had executed the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 22, 23 and 24 on 19.09.2008 and they were interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, therefore, he filed suit for 1/4th share of the property described in Scheduled-C, and, declaration was also sought to the effect that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant No. 22, 23 and 24 is null and void up to the share of the plaintiff but defendant No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20 and 21 filed their written statements and denied the averments made in the plaint. Counter claim was also filed by them seeking therein 1/4th share of the property described in Schedule- C, 1/4th share of the property described in Schedule- B, declaration of the sale deed dated 10.09.2008 as null and void, and, sale deeds executed pertaining to plot numbers 1438/2, 1438/3 and 1438/5 are null and void up to their share and for permanent injunction.

3. During the pendency of Civil Suit, the defendant No. 15 namely Mohan died on 16.11.2015 and his legal heirs i.e. the petitioners herein were brought on record. They were proceeded ex-parte on 26.10.2016 and thereafter an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC was moved and the same was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.12.2019.

4. The petitioners/legal heirs of defendant No.15 filed their written statements along with an application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC for taking written statement on record on behalf of the legal heirs of the defendant No. 15. Oral objection was raised by the plaintiff on application moved by the petitioners. The learned trial court vide order dated 22.01.2020 rejected the said application on the ground that the legal heirs of the defendant No.15 have pleaded contrary to the pleading made by the original defendant which is not permissible.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by the learned trial court is erroneous and contrary to law. He further submits that the learned trial court ought to have appreciated the fact that not taking of the written statement on record would cause great loss to the petitioners herein as no written statement was filed by the original defendant No.15. He also submits that the time limit prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC is directory and not mandatory and thus the Court may in its discretion allow the party to file the written statement beyond the period of 90 days, if sufficient reason is assigned. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (6) SCC 344 and Abdul Razak (dead) through Lrs. and Others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and Others, 2