Defendants have the locus paenitentiae to withdraw an unsigned written statement and file a new one until it is taken on record by the court.

JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---A somewhat interesting question arises in this revision application. After the order was passed against the defendants that the suit against them should proceed ex parte because no written statement was filed on due date, a document purporting to be the written statement of the defendants, but signed only by the Advocate for the defendants, was sought to be filed in the Court, together with the application for taking the same on record and for setting aside the previous order directing the suit to proceed ex parte. That written statement statement was not taken on record. In the technical sense, the application was rejected and an ex parte decree was passed against the defendants.

2. In appeal, the ex parte decree had been set aside and the defendants were directed to file their written statement in the trial Court on 7-12-1281. But on that day, the defendants sought to file not the same previous document, but a different document signed by the defendants as well as their Advocate, as their written statement. The plaintiff objected to the said new written statement being taken on record, and insisted that the defendants should be allowed, on principle, to file only the earlier document signed by their Advocate, as their real written statement and no another new document as their written statement as such. These objections have been upheld by the trial Court and the order in that behalf is the subject matter of this revision application.

These are in brief, the facts of the case and the question arises as to whether there is any bar against the defendants from filing, what the plaintiff describes as their real written statement.

3. I will now state the facts in some details. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. His contention is that the suit premises were given to the defendants by him on leave and license. Civil Suit No. 10 of 1980 was filed by him for possession of the suit premises after allegedly revoking the said licence.

4. 4th June, 1980 was the date fixed by this Court for the defendants to file the written statement. The defendants had filed their appearance before that date and vakalatnama was duly filed by their learned Advocate appearing on their behalf before that date, that is before 4-6-1980. But on 4-6-1980 no written statement was filed by the defendants not was an application presented before the Court for extension of time. The Court, therefore, ordered the suit to proceed ex parte and the hearing of the same was fixed on 9-6-1980. But before the suit could actually proceed ex parte, an application was made on behalf of the defendants for setting aside the above mentioned order, dated 4-6-1980, directing the suit to proceed ex parte. However, the application was rejected by the trial Court although the ex parte decree as such was not passed on 9-6-1980. On 10-6-1980, an application Exhibit 12 was made on behalf of the defendants once again making the same prayer of setting aside the previous order, dated 4-6-1980, directing the suit to proceed ex parte. But at this time, along with this application a document purporting to be written statement of the defendants, but signed only by the learned Advocate for the defendants was produced before the Court. I may state here that it was the case of the defendants that they had filed an application on 4-6-1980 itself for extension of time to file the written statement, but the application was misplaced by the clerk of the Court somewhere which was the reason why the order of ex-parte proceedings came to be passed. However, the trial Court was not impressed by any of these please and even the second application Exhibit 12, was rejected by the trial Court. The result was that the document which purported to be the written statement of the defendants but, which was not signed by either of the defendants (though it was signed by their Advocate) was not technically taken by the Court on record and it is common ground that no s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document