IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, affirming that the petitioner failed to justify the delay in filing a written statement, thus upholding the Trial Court's decision.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barmer (‘Trial Court’), whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein in Civil Original Suit no. 188/2017 (60/2009) under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:-

(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure-8), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer, in Civil Original Suit No.-188/2017 (60/2009) (State of Rajasthan & Ors. versus Rakesh Kumar & Anr.] may kindly be set aside and the written statement filed by petitioner may be taken on record.

(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem just fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased khatedari land measuring 6 bigha of Khasra No. 246/89, situated at Village-Babuguleriya from respondent no. 4 through a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2006 (Annex.1). Thereafter, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the cancellation of a sale deed dated 19.07.2006 (Annex.1). It was contended in the plaint that the sale was illegal as it was executed in a notified area, Village Babuguleriya, where, under Section 3(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1961, sale of property to outsiders require prior permission from the competent authority and thus, the respondents claimed that the sale deed was void inasmuch as the property in dispute had been sold by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner, without the permission of the competent authority.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner failed to file a written statement, after the service of summons and therefore, his right of filing the written statement was closed vide order dated 24.11.2014 (Annex.3). Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed issues, concluded plaintiff’s evidence and fixed the matter for defendant’s evidence. Subsequently, in the absence of the petitioner-defendant and his counsel, learned Trial Court initiated the proceedings ex-parte and passed a decree in favor of the respondents on 24.04.2018 (Annex.4). The petitioner then filed an application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 15.07.2022 (Annex.5), and the suit was restored to its original. However, the petitioner was not allowed to file a written statement, which led him to file a writ petition (13255/2022), which is still pending. On 15.03.2024 (Annex.6), the petitioner filed a new application with a written statement, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court on 09.09.2024 (Annex.8). Aggrieved of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.8), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the order dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.5) by closing the right to file a written statement, resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, despite having appeared through counsel after being served with summons, his counsel before the learned court below inadvertently failed to submit the written statement, leading to the closure of this right on 24.11.2014 (Annex.3).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, being a layman with no knowledge of the legal intricacies, was unaware of the closure of his right until after an ex-parte decree was passed on 24