Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Sukanta Bhatta – Appellant
Versus
Radhamohan Dev Bije – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments about acceptance of written statements. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of legal rights of substituted defendants. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's order for expeditious disposal of the case. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. S.Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 48 and 50 and Mr. A.Mishra, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 18, 19 and 20.
2. Notice to other Opposite Parties were not sent on the request of the Petitioners as Opposite Parties 18, 19 and 20 are the contesting Opposite Parties.
3. Present Petitioners being the Plaintiff filed T.S. No.406 of 1988 praying for declaration of right over the suit scheduled properties and permanent injunction along with other consequential reliefs.
4. Initially Defendants No.14 and others having been deprived of filing their written statement, had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.6853 of 2010 challenging order dated 6th October 2009 passed by the Trial Court. This Court vide order dated 25th November 2019 permitted all such Defendants who were the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6853 o
Substituted defendants are restricted to adopting previous written statements of deceased defendants and cannot file new statements differing from those already submitted.
Legal representatives must adhere to deceased parties' original pleadings; contradictory additional statements are impermissible unless properly amended or requested.
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.
The right to file an additional written statement is contingent upon amendments in the plaint and must not introduce new claims, as established by prior court orders.
Procedural rules should facilitate justice, not impede it; errors in representation are rectifiable, and courts must ensure fair opportunities for parties to present their cases.
Legal heirs cannot take a stand contrary to their predecessor-in-interest, and the application for substitution under Order 22, Rule 3 read with Order 1, Rule 10, CPC does not grant independent right....
The court held that procedural unfairness due to technical irregularities can justify allowing the filing of Written Statements after delays, emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural str....
The mandatory timeframe for filing a written statement is reset when service of summons does not include a copy of the plaint, thereby allowing acceptance of the written statement if filed within 120....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
