Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 89
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prakash Gupta, J.
Umrao Singh Thirawat – Appellant
Versus
Civil Judge JD and Judicial Magistrate, Viratnangar and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1910 of 2011
Decided On : 22-01-2020
For the Appellant : Pradeep Kalwania
For the Respondent: J.P. Goyal, Senior Counsel, Abhinav Arora, A.K. Pareek and Rani Bhandari
A defendant has no right to file a written statement after his opportunity to do so has been closed.
Headnote:
WRITTEN STATEMENT - CLOSURE OF OPPORTUNITY - ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) CPC - SECTION 151 CPC - The court held that once the opportunity to file a written statement is closed, the defendant cannot file a written statement to the amended plaint, especially when the amendment only added a new defendant and no additional averments were made against the original defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant's opportunity to file a written statement was closed by the court. Later, the plaintiff filed an application to implead a new defendant. The court allowed the application and the new defendant filed a written statement. The original defendant also filed a written statement, despite the fact that his opportunity to do so had been closed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendant had no right to file a written statement after his opportunity to do so had been closed. The court also held that the amendment to the plaint only added a new defendant and no additional averments were made against the original defendant, so there was no need for the original defendant to file an amended written statement.
Issues: Whether the defendant had a right to file a written statement after his opportunity to do so had been closed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jaan Mohd. Versus Mohan Lal, which held that a defendant has a right to file an amended written statement after an amendment to the plaint, but only if the defendant has already filed a written statement. In the present case, the defendant had not filed a written statement, so he had no right to file an amended written statement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's writ petition.
ORDER :
Prakash Gupta, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant) against the order dated 21.12.2010 whereby the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') and denied to take the written statement filed by the defendant on record for the reason that the opportunity to file the same had already been closed.
2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff Mira Devi filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant Umrao Singh Thirawat. Vide order dated 26.8.2002, opportunity to file the written statement by the defendant Umrao Singh Thirawat was closed. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC for impleading Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank as a party defendant no. 2 in the aforesaid suit. Vide order dated 25.5.2005, the Trial Court allowed the application and impleaded Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank as a party defendant no. 2 in the aforesaid suit and the matter was posted for filing the written statement by the defendant no. 2. Taking the undue benefit of opportunity being granted to the defendant no. 2 to file the written statement, the defendant no. 1 Umrao Singh Thirawat filed the written statement, irrespective of the fact that his opportunity to file the written statement had already been closed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 26.8.2002.
3. The plaintiff filed the application for not taking the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 on record for the reason that his opportunity to file the written statement had already been closed vide order dated 26.8.2002. The said order dated 26.8.2002 was challenged before this Court by filing petition, which was dismissed. In this view of the matter, it was prayed that the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 be kept in Part D and the same shall not be taken on record. The defendant no. 1 filed the reply to the said application. It was submitted that on the application filed by the plaintiff, Zila Bhoomi Vikas Bank was impleaded as a party defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Resultantly the amended plaint was filed and a copy whereof was given to the defendant. In the amended plaint, new facts were incorporated, for which the Court granted permission to file the amended written statement. The amended written statement was filed within the prescribed time. In this view of the matter, amended written statement was required to be taken on record.
4. The Trial Court vide its order dated 21.12.2010 allowed the plaintiff's application and denied to take the written statement filed by the defendant no. 1 on record. Hence the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 submitted that the defendant no. 1 has got the right to defend himself which can be possible only on his filing the written statement. He further submits that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to reverse its own earlier order, whereby it had directed to take the written statement of the defendant no. 1 to the amended plaint on record.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant no. 2 supported the impugned order. They submit that the opportunity to file the written statement by the defendant no. 1 had already been closed by the Trial Court vide its order dated 26.8.2002 and only the defendant no. 2 was permitted to file the written statement to the amended plaint. In this view of the matter, once the opportunity to file the written statement by the defendant no. 1 was closed vide order dated 26.8.2002, which was challenged before this Court and the petition there against was dismissed, there was no question to grant an opportunity to the defendant no. 1 to file the written statement to the amended plaint. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the plaintiff places reliance on the judgment passed by the
