The court emphasized that late applications for written statements and expert analysis must be scrutinized to prevent abuse of process, especially where significant delays are evident.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. This miscellaneous second appeal is filed challenging the remand order passed by the First Appellate Court in allowing I.A.Nos.1 and 2 which were filed before the First Appellate Court seeking permission to file the written statement as well as to appoint the Court Commissioner under Section 151 of CPC and under Order26 Rule 10-A of CPC respectively.

3. The First Appellate Court while considering the regular appeal considered I.A.No.1 filed by defendant Nos.1 to 6 under Section 151 of CPC and also I.A.No.2 filed under Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC wherein an application is filed praying the Court to receive the written statement as well as appoint a Court Commissioner. Those two applications are resisted by the respondent in appeal by filing statement of objections to the application under Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC only. The counsel for the appellant submits that the copy of application filed under Section 151 of CPC was not served on him. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the applications as well as the statement of objections on I.As., framed the points for consideration that whether IAs are deserve to be allowed and whether interference of this Court is called for with respect of judgment and all the points are answered as affirmative.

4. The counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the suit is filed for the relief of partition by the sisters and also for separate possession claiming the share in the item Nos.1 to 13 properties. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the suit was contested by the subsequent purchaser that is the appellant herein and none of the defendants who are the brothers in the original suit have contested the matter though appeared through their counsel. The counsel would vehemently contend that vakalath was filed on 06.11.2009 and not led any evidence. Only the plaintiff led the evidence. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and the Trial Court having considered the material on record granted the share in respect of item No.1 to 11 excluding the properties which have been purchased by the appellant herein since the sale transaction was taken placed in the year 1997 and the sale was also made by the father and an observation is made that the plaintiffs who are the daughters cannot question the sale made by the father in the year 1997 and dismissed the suit in respect of the properties which the appellant has purchased that is item Nos.12 and 13.

5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of suit in respect of item Nos.12 and 13, the plaintiffs have filed the appeal in R.A.No.1/2012 wherein also her brothers and also the subsequent purchaser as parties to the appeal. The counsel brought to notice of this Court that when the matter was not contested before the Trial Court, the same was disposed of on 19.11.2011. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the appeal was filed on 03.01.2012 and even though the appeal was filed in the year 2012, they have not filed any application for filing of written statement as well as filing of the application under Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC and same was filed on 12.12.2014. The counsel would vehemently contend that from 2009 to 2014, they have not made any efforts to file the written statement and suddenly came before the Court assigning the reason that their signatures are forged. But the fact that the property was sold in the year 1997 and possession was also delivered in the same year itself. The defendants who are the sons of the vendor have not agitated the same and even not disputed the claim of the plaintiffs who are the