##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3477

1 MP-3873-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. PETITION No. 3873 of 2025

IQBAL KHAN

Versus

ZAKIR KHAN AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Anuraj Saxena- Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Prem Singh Bhadouirya with Shri Trishant Mishra- Advocate for

respondent Nos.1 to 12.

ORDER

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has

been preferred by the petitioner/defendant No.1 assailing the order dated

14.07.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 63-A/2024 by the First Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Karera, District Shivpuri, whereby the Trial Court struck off

the right of the petitioner/defendant No.1 to file written statement.

2. The plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for declaration and permanent

injunction in respect of land bearing Survey No. 1506/2 admeasuring 0.023

hectare, wherein a residential house of about 1250 sq. ft. is situated on half

of the land and the remaining portion is vacant. After filing of the plaint, the

suit was posted for filing of the written statement.

3. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application

under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC on 14.07.2025 pleading that due to medical

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AVINASH

BHARGAV

Signing time: 30-Jan-26

12:22:38 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3477

2 MP-3873-2025

reason, he could not file the written statement within the prescribed time and

further pleaded that the identity of the suit land has not been properly

mentioned by the plaintiffs and the requisite court fee has also not been

deposited. The learned trial Court vide impugned order rejected the

application filed by petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC

by closing his right to file the written statement. Hence, this petition.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

impugned order passed by the Trial Court is arbitrary, unsustainable in law,

and contrary to the settled principles of civil jurisprudence. It is contended

that once, the petitioner raised an objection regarding maintainability of the

suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it was incumbent

upon the Trial Court to adjudicate the said application before taking any

coercive step. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the written

statement was neither intentional nor deliberate, but was occasioned due to

medical ailment, which fact was brought to the notice of the Trial Court. The

petitioner was ready and willing to file the written statement on the next date

of hearing and had no intention to delay the proceedings. It is further

contended that striking off the right of the petitioner to file written statement

amounts to denial of fair opportunity of hearing and results in grave

prejudice to the petitioner. The approach adopted by the learned Trial Court

is hyper-technical and defeats the ends of justice. It is further contended that

if one effective opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file the written

statement, the petitioner undertakes not to seek any unnecessary adjournment

and to cooperate in expeditious disposal of the suit. Hence, prayed for setting

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AVINASH

BHARGAV

Signing time: 30-Jan-26

12:22:38 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3477

3 MP-3873-2025

aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and by supporting the

impugned order, prayed for rejection of this misc. petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Upon perusal of the impugned order as well as the documents

available on record, it is undisputed fact that petitioner first appeared before

the Trial Court on 25.07.2024 and that the right to file the written statement

was struck off on 14.07.2025, thus, there is delay on the part of the

petitioner in filing the written statement. However, it is well-settled law that

the provision of Order VIII R