Back
2022 Supreme(Cal) 372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Subhasis Dasgupta, J.
Goutam Hazra And Another - Appellant
Versus
Pinaki Hazra And Another - Respondent
C.O. No. 848 of 2022
Decided On : 05-09-2022
Mr. Saptanshu Basu, Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala, Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Ms. Sonam Roy., for the Appellant; Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Ms. Susmita Chatterjee., for the Respondent
The court emphasized that the provision of Section 151 C.P.C. may not be attracted in circumstances where the defendants sought to file a fresh written statement, and highlighted the importance of considering the nature of the relationship between the parties and the existence of previous litigation in reaching the decision.
Headnote:
Written Statement - Application for Opportunity to File Fresh Written Statement - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 151 - Order 8 Rule 1 - [Section 151 C.P.C., Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. and Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. in the context of allowing the defendants to file a fresh written statement. It considered the arguments of misrepresentation and undue influence, the existence of previous litigation between the parties, and the nature of the relationship between the parties. The court concluded that the provision of Section 151 C.P.C. may not be attracted in such circumstances and disposed of the revisional application, while allowing the petitioners to propose an amendment of the written statement in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a suit for partition and permanent injunction. The defendants sought an opportunity to file a fresh written statement, alleging that the previous written statement was filed without their conscious knowledge due to misrepresentation and undue influence by the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provision of Section 151 C.P.C. may not be attracted in the circumstances presented and disposed of the revisional application. It allowed the petitioners to propose an amendment of the written statement in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants should be granted an opportunity to file a fresh written statement upon disregarding the previous written statement, considering the allegations of misrepresentation and undue influence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision of Section 151 C.P.C. may not be attracted in the circumstances presented, and the defendants were not entitled to file a fresh written statement. It emphasized the existence of previous litigation between the parties and the nature of the relationship between the parties as factors influencing the decision.
Final Decision: The revisional application was disposed of, and the petitioners were allowed to propose an amendment of the written statement in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - Subject of challenge in this case is against an order dated 8th March, 2022, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Barasat in Title Suit No. 79 of 2014, rejecting an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure dated 28.03.2017, filed by the petitioners proposing for giving an opportunity to petitioners to file written statement afresh upon disregarding the previous written statement, allegedly filed by the petitioners (defendant nos. 1 and 2).
2. Admittedly, this is a suit for partition and permanent injunction.
3. Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners (defendant nos. 1 and 2) upon adverting to Para-2 to 4 of petition submitted that petitioners had been misled by the opposite party no. 1/plaintiff to put their respective signature on some blank papers, as well as on vakalatnama, which had been subsequently utilized, as their written statement.
4. Mr. Basu submitted that upon receiving summons of suit, petitioners (defendant nos. 1 and 2) approached plaintiff (opposite party no. 1) to get the suit property amicably partitioned, and on their proposal, the opposite party/plaintiff assured petitioners that plaintiff would undertake all responsibility to get the suit property amicably partitioned.
5. Petitioner, thus, upon reposing confidence upon opposite party no. 1/plaintiff, even did not ensure their appearance before the court below in the pending partition suit, and they had no knowledge about filing of written statement, if any, in the partition suit on their behalf. Shortly, thereafter for the ill-treatment of the opposite party no. 1, during the pendency of the suit, petitioners collected the certified copy of the written statement, wherefrom they could learn that the written statement had been allegedly filed on their behalf, which was not the product of their conscious knowledge, and accordingly disputed the same.
6. By petition under Section 151 C.P.C., petitioners proposed for granting an opportunity to file written statement afresh upon disregarding their written statement, allegedly filed by them.
7. Upon narrating such factual backgrounds, Mr. Basu strongly contended that the written statement allegedly filed was not the perfect reflection of their mind to put up their respective defence, as per their own choice, and it was a product of misrepresentation after being misled, the petitioners put their signature on some blank papers, which had been purposefully utilized to dislodge the petitioners from their proposed defence to be set up in the pending partition suit.
8. Mr. Basu submitted that a written statement containing contradictory stand was permissible under the law and there would be no prejudice caused to opposite parties in the event of petitioners being favoured with an opportunity to file a fresh written statement on their behalf, upon disregarding their previous written statement allegedly filed.
9. Such issue could have been considered by the court below in aid of Section 151 C.P.C., for the absence of any specific provision in the Code permitting a person to file written statement afresh under a compelling circumstances, as mentioned hereinabove Mr. Basu argued.
10. Reliance was placed by Mr. Basu on a decision reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1260 delivered in the case of Jet Ply Wood Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Madhukar Nowlakha & Ors. with Biswarup Banerjee & Ors. Vs. Madhukar Nowlakha, to submit that in an appropriate case, where petitioners had been misled into making such submission of written statement on account of misrepresentation of the other side, there may be permission granted to file fresh written statement in aid of Section 151 C.P.C.
11. In the decision, referred above by Mr. Basu, a suit was allowed to be withdrawn, but without any liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for recalling the said order, by which the suit had been permitted to be wit
