2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 3838
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
DR. BHANU PRATAP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
RASHTRIYA JAN SAHYOG AVAM BALVIKAS SANSTHAN (NIPSID) – Respondent
WP227/799/2019
SMT NIRMALA RAO
2025:CGHC:17433 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 799 of 2019
1 - Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Shri R.J. Singh Aged About 58 Years Resident Of 31/1165, Dr. Singh Nursing Home, Katora Talab, P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Aditya Wires And Nails Deopuri Through Proprietor Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh Town, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Resident Of 31/1165, Dr. Singh Nursing Home, Katora Talab , P.S. Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Pushpalata Singh W/o Dr. Bhanu Pratap Singh Aged About 57 Years Resident Of 31/1165, Dr. Singh Nursing Home, Katora Talab , P.S. Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Sonbarsha Singh W/o Shri R.J. Singh Aged About 77 Years Resident Of 31/1165, Dr. Singh Nursing Home, Katora Talab , P.S. Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus
1 - Rashtriya Jan Sahyog Avam Balvikas Sansthan (Nipsid) 5, Siri Institutional Area, Hauj Khas, Ministry Of Woman And Child Development, Govt. Of India, New Delhi - 110016, Through Its Officer Incharge., District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. Through - Principal Secretary., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Woman And Child Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation , Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Zone Commissioner Muncipal Corporation, Zone No. 6 Rawabhatha, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Shri Rajkumar S/o Late Tahsukh Lal R/o Near Shri Shiv Bajrang Temple, Phool Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
8 - Shri Sudama S/o Late Mangal Rao R/o Main Road, Deopuri Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Shri Vinod Kumar S/o Late Mangal Rao R/o Main Road , Deopuri, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Shri Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sharad Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent/ State : Shri Pramod Ramteke, P.L.
For Respondents No.5 & 6 : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
16.04.2025
1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order passed by the learned 12th Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 30A of 2018, whereby the written statement filed by defendants No.2 to
6 was taken on record after the expiry of 90 days.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that according to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, the written statement could not have been taken on record by the learned Court below after the expiry of 90 days. He would further submit that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC are mandatory in nature.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.5 & 6 would submit that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC are directory in nature as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing CRD. Surendra Agnihotri and others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 394 and Gurdial Singh and others v. Raj Kumar Aneja and others, reported in (2002) 2 SCC
445.
4. Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondents No.5 & 6.
5. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC are directory in nature as held