A trial Court has the discretion to grant or refuse leave for filing an additional written statement by a party defending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Court must give reasons and show circumstances in support of its order.

1. This revision petition raises a very interesting question for determination :

" Whether a trial Court can allow a defendant to file an additional written statement in rebuttal to the written statement of the other defendant? "

2. Parties are closely related to each other. Respondents 1 & 2 are the brothers and petitioner is the son of respondent No.2. The controversy centers round a relinquishment deed dated 18-7-1980 purported to have been executed by respondents No. 2 in favour of respondent No.1 relinquishing a portion of House No. 1771 situated in Mohalla Ragunath pure, Jammu. The petitioner, son of respondent No.2, filed a suit in the trial Court seeking declaration that this deed was void and in operative. While respondent No.1 filed his written statement in the suit, respondent No.2 was set exparte parte. It, however, appears that he was later allowed to file his written statement in which he admitted the claim of plaintiff-petitioner and made some supporting averments. This prompted respondent No.1 to file an application before the trial Court seeking leave for filing the additional written statement to set up his defence against the stand taken by respondentNo. 2. This application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 7-4-1994 against which this revision petition is directed.

3. Mr. Wazir, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff assailed the order impugned on the plea that the trial Court had no competence to permit an additional written statement filed by respondent No.1 against the written statement filed by respondent No.2. According to him, there could not be a written statement against a written statement as such a concept was not countenanced by the provisions of order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. He contended that the written statement could be filed only as against the plaint of the plaintiff and not against the written statement of the defendant. On merits, he submitted that the trial Court had passed an unreasoned order allowing respondent No. 1 to file his written statement without referring to the circumstances which wanted the Court to grant the leave.

4. Mr. Sharma,learned counsel for respondent No. 1 pointed out that order VII Rule 1 only required a defendant to present a written statement of his defence. It did not postulate a written statement against the plaint alone. He submitted that a defendant could set up his defence both against a plaint and even against a written statement of another defendant where such written statement collusively admitted the claim of the plaintiff to the detriment of the aggrieved defendant taking new pleas which could not be replied in the earlier written statement.

5. Both sides cited AIR 1992 Delhi 162, AIR 1993 Orissa 141, AIR 1980 M.P. 8 and 1986 K.L.J.632 for and against.

6. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant provisions before adverting to the examination of the rival contentions. Order VII Rules 1 & 9 C.P.C. read thus:

" 1. Written statement- (1) The defendant shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence.

2. Subsequent leadings: - no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same."

Dealing with the first contention that a written statement is available against the plaint only, it seems to be emanating from a misconception and misappreciation of the provisions of order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. A plain reading and a common understanding of this provision does not suggest so. It significantly uses the expression "the written statement of his defense" which is of wide amplitude and leave a defendant free to present his statement of defence against a claim contained in any pleading, be that a plaint or t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document