Procedural compliance should not hinder substantial justice; courts must allow defendants the opportunity to file written statements unless it prejudices other parties.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 14 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 5603 of 2025 ANANTPUR GRIH NIRMAN SHAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT Versus KRISHNADEV SINGH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arun Kumar Pandey - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 16.9.2025 passed by second Civil Judge. Senior Division, Rewa in RCSA No.241A/2024, whereby the court below has closed the right of the petitioner defendant No.5 to file written statement in the suit.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit is at the stage of appearance of the defendants and by the impugned order, the court has directed to submit the process fee for service on defendant No.7. 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 the matter has been pending since last one year some months with observation that the petitioner has not 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 Signature Not Verified 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 court has ordered for submission of process fee for service of notice on the defendant No.7. It is also seen from the order-sheet that none of the defendants have submitted their written statements. 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).”

5. Considering the stage of the case and as the plaintiff has objected orally 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 Signature Not Verified period of 20 days from today subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff.

6. In case such written statement is not filed within the stipulated time, the impugned order shall remain in operation.