Rajendra Singh v. Usha Rakheja

Jharkhand HC3 Nov 2025C.M.P./228/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.M.P. No. 228 of 2025, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 03.11.2025 by Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Keywords: written statement; Order VIII Rule 1 CPC; debarment of defendant; setting aside; ex parte proceeding against defendant no. 2; Additional Civil Judge-XIII Jamshedpur; cost of Rs. 5000/-; Salem Advocate Bar Association (2005) 6 SCC 344; typhoid/indifferent health ground; suit of 2021; appearance on 10.05.2023; pending I.A. disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file written statement, subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as cost to the plaintiff within two weeks of the order; pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. ¶closing

Rajendra Singh Vs Usha Rakheja — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:JHHC:32914

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 228 of 2025

¶3

Rajendra Singh, S/o Late Sardar Bhagwan Singh, R/o Bero, P.O.- Godi Bero, P.S.-Raghunathpur, District-Purulia, State West Bengal

¶4

..... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Usha Rakheja W/o Late Dilip Kumar, R/o H. No. 42, Sindhi Refugee Colony, P.O.- Agrico, P.S. Sitaramdera, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum

¶7

Sardar Kirpal Singh, S/o Late Sardar Achhar Singh, R/o H. No. L, Gandhi Bhawan Mills & Godown Area, Sakchi Market, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum

¶8

… …. Opposite Parties

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Petitioner : Ms. Neeharika Mazumdar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate

¶11

------

¶12

Order No. 06 / Dated : 03.11.2025.

¶13

Petitioner is the defendant no.1 and is aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2024 by which a petition for setting aside the order dated 18.10.2023 by which the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement has been rejected by the learned Additional Civil Judge-XIII, Jamshedpur.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner/defendant no. 1 that the suit was filed in 2021 and notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner entered into appearance on 10.05.2023 and the case was posted for appearance of the other defendants till 18.10.2023.

¶15

The petitioner was debarred from filing written statement on 18.10.2023 and on the same day an ex parte proceeding was drawn against defendant no. 2.

¶16

It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that under order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is not mandatory in nature and after four months the petitioner has been debarred from filing written statement. It is further submitted that he was suffering from typhoid since October 2023 and therefore, due to indifferent health he could not take appropriate steps for filing the written statement within the stipulate time.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submits that no cogent reason has been explained for the delay in filing the written statement. It was incumbent on the part of the defendant to have filed the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of notice which could have been

¶18

2025:JHHC:32914

¶19

extended by another 60 days. Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 that the stipulated period is not mandatory and in appropriate cases it can be extended.

¶20

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds taken, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to file written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- to the plaintiff within two weeks of this order.

¶21

Civil Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶22

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶23

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶24

Pawan / - Uploaded 06.11.2025

Rajendra Singh v. Usha Rakheja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. Usha Rakheja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Asfaque Alias Asfaque Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smt. Bhagabati Choudhary Vs Dabasish Choudhary

Sita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Braj Mohan Singh Vs Suman Singh

Sri Nandlal Sahu Vs Hiralal Sahu

The State of Jharkhand, through Secretary Water Resources Department Vs M/S R.M. Sinha and Company, Represented Thro Its Duly Nominated and Authorized Person Sri R. Sarkar