Location: OHC, Cuttack

Date: 17-Oct-2025 17:11:02

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.763 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India)

Akshaya Kumar Das and Another …. Petitioners

-versus-

Sanjukta Palei @ Nayak and Others … Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioners : Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate.

For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Baral, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

14^th October, 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and

Mr. A. Baral, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 17^th December, 2024 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Puri passed in C.S. No.350 of 2023 wherein the prayer of Defendants 8 and 9 to accept their

written statement has been refused.

Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Oct-2025 17:11:02

3. In the suit filed by present Opposite Parties 1 and 2, Defendants 8 and 9 (present Petitioners) appeared upon receipt of notice but did not file their written statement in time. Therefore vide order dated 28^th March, 2024 of the trial court said Defendants were debarred of their right from filing the written statement. Subsequently the suit proceeded and the Plaintiffs adduced their evidence. After examination of one witness from the side of Plaintiffs, Defendants 8 and 9 filed a petition on 23^rd August, 2024 praying to accept their written statement along with the WS.

4. The reasons stated by Defendants 8 and 9 for delay in filing the written statement is due to non-collection of certain information.

5. The suit has been filed praying for reliefs of declaration of right, title, interest over suit schedule „A‟ property with further declaration against the consolidation RoR and for permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule „B‟ property along with other consequential reliefs.

6. Admittedly, Defendants 8 and 9 are the contesting parties amongst other defendants. It is true that the petition filed by Defendants 8 and 9 to accept their written statement on record is Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Oct-2025 17:11:02 with delay around 5 months from the date they were debarred from filing the written statement by learned trial court. The petition filed by said defendants under Annexure-2 does not disclose any substantial reason for the delay occurred on their part.

7. It is true that a contesting party should not be deprived of his substantial right of filing the pleadings and the law is well settled on the same. Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.), (2007) 10 SCC 82, have observed that, “Every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing. The appellants in the present case have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allowed to take a defence.”

8. Further in Zolba v. Keshao, (2008) 11 SCC 769, it has been held as follows;

“13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the statements made in the application for condoning the delay in filing the written statement, we are not in a position to Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 17-Oct-2025 17:11:02 hold that the appellant was not entitled to file the written statement even after the expiry of the period mentioned in the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. After reading the provisions, in particular the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, we are unable to hold that the provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 are mandatory in nature.

14. In Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344 : AIR 2005 SC 3353] it has been clearly held that the provisions including the proviso to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but directory. It has been held in that decision that the delay can be condoned and the written statem