Dismissed¶25

Shakti Pada Mahatha v. R K Mishra

Jharkhand HC10 Feb 2025C.M.P./477/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ petition dismissed; quashing sought of trial-court order dated 01.03.2024 (T.S. No. 07/2009, Civil Judge Jr. Division Bokaro) allowing defendant no.2's belated written-statement acceptance; Order 8 Rule 1 CPC directory not mandatory; Kailash v. Nanhku (2005) 4 SCC 480 relied on; Rs. 2,000 cost on defendant payable to plaintiff; bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.; decided 10/02/2025.

What did the court decide?

The Court finds that the learned trial court, by the impugned order dated 01.03.2024, gave cogent reasons for allowing filing of the written statement, done after imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- upon the defendant to be paid to the plaintiff. ¶20

Shakti Pada Mahatha Vs R K Mishra — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

C.M.P. No. 477 of 2024

¶3

Shakti Pada Mahatha, aged about 68 years,

¶4

Sadhan Mahatha, aged about 65 years

¶5

Ramesh Mahatha, aged about 62 years,

¶6

Mritunjay Mahatha, aged about 52 years, All sons of late Suryakant Mahatha and residents of village Sitanala, P.O. Mahal, P.S. Chandankiary, District-Bokaro (Mobile No. 9431162789)

¶7

………………….Petitioners

¶8

… Versus….

¶9

R.K. Mishra, son of Dinanath Mishra, resident of village Loco Bazar, Pathardih, P.O. and P.S. Sudamdih, District-Dhanbad

¶10

Nemai Chandra Mahatha, son of Hrishikesh Mahatha, resident of village Sitanal, .P.O. Mahal, P.S. Chandankiary, district-Bokaro

¶11

Dilip Kumar Mahatha, son of Bhagirath Mahatha, residents of village Sitanal, P.O. Mahal, P.S. chandankiary, District-Bokaro

¶12

Prabhash Chandra Tiwary

¶13

Subhash Chandra Tiwary, both sons of late Bali Tiwary and are residents of village Saharjori, P.O. and P.S. Chandankiary, District-Bokaro …… Opposite Parties

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Parties :

¶16

06/Dated: 10/02/2025

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶18

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bokaro in Title Suit No. 07 of 2009 whereby the petition dated 07.11.2017 filed by the defendant no.2/O.P. No.2 for accepting the written statement has been allowed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said petition has been filed on 07.11.2017 and the learned court belatedly allowed the said petition in view of that the said order may kindly be set aside.

¶20

The Court finds that the learned court by the impugned order dated 01.03.2024 has given the cogent reason in allowing the petition for filing

¶21

¶22

written statement that was done after imposing a cost of Rs. 2,000/- upon the defendant to be paid to the plaintiff. It is well settled that the Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C is directory not mandatory as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme

¶23

Court in the case of “ Kailash Vs. Nanhku & Others” reported in (2005) 4

¶24

SCC 480.

¶25