Defendants cannot file an additional written statement to an amended plaint if their right to do so has been previously forfeited, as per the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

(N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The Petitioners - defendant Nos. 1 and 4 take exception to an order dated 17^th August, 2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kalyan whereby the Application (Exh. 92) preferred by defendant Nos.1 to 4 to take on record and read the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on 30^th March, 2019 as written statement of the defendants to the amended plaint, came to be rejected.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:-

3.1 Respondent No. 1 is a trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 . The defendant No. 1, is also a public charitable trust. On 20^th July, 2012 an agreement was executed between respondent No. 1/ plaintiff and defendant No. 1 for construction of a school on the property of the plaintiff, and operation and management of the said school i.e. Prabhakar Desai International School, Dombivali (E), (PDIS).

3.2 Disputes arose over the performance of the terms of the said agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. On 24^th April, 2015 the plaintiff terminated the said agreement dated 20^th July, 2012 and revoked the license granted to defendant No. 1 to operate the said school, w.e.f. 5^th May, 2015.

3.3 Alleging breach of the terms of the contract to run and conduct PDIS, the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,30,95,060/-, along with interest @ 12% p.a. towards construction of PDIS building and the entire project, directions to the defendants to handover the affairs of the said school, to remove themselves from the premises of PDIS and the consequential relief of injunction.

3.4 The defendants appeared in response to the suit summons. Various interlocutory applications were filed in the said suit.

3.5 As the defendants did not file the written statement on 19^th January, 2016, the plaintiff filed an application to pass “no written statement” order against the defendants. On 3^rd March, 2016, the learned Civil Judge passed “no written statement” order against the defendants. On 29^th August, 2018, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment in the plaint. The said application was allowed by an order dated 19^th January, 2019 subject to the payment of costs. Eventually, on 31^st January, 2019, the plaintiff amended the plaint.

3.6 On 30^th March, 2019 an application was filed on behalf of the defendants to condone the delay in filing the written statement sans the signatures of the defendants. In the month of April, 2019, the defendants, filed application to permit the defendants to file the written statement by condoning the delay therein. By an order dated 29^th November, 2022 the said application came to be rejected. In meanwhile, the plaintiff adduced evidence of its first witness in the form of affidavit in lieu of examination in chief.

3.7 On 9^th March, 2023 the defendants filed another application for setting aside the “no written statement” order (Exh.85). The said application was also rejected by the learned Civil Judge by an order dated 24^th June, 2023.

3.8 The defendants carried the matter before this Court. By an order dated 6^th September, 2023, in Writ Petition No. 10917 of 2023, this Court rejected the petition finding no infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. A Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22333 of 2023 preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19^th February, 2024.

3.9 Undeterred, the defendants filed application (Exh.92), to read the written statement which was tendered along with the application dated 30^th March, 2019, as the written statement of the defendants to the amended plaint. It