Substituted defendants are restricted to adopting previous written statements of deceased defendants and cannot file new statements differing from those already submitted.

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 6^th October 2009 passed by the Trial Court. This Court vide order dated 25^th November 2019 permitted all such Defendants who were the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6853 of 2010 (including original Defendant No.14) to file their written statement within a period of two weeks thereof. Pursuant to order dated 25^th November 2019 of this Court Defendants No.8(b), 11, 12, 15 and 16(b) have filed their written statement. But in the meantime, original Defendant No.14, who was Petitioner No.5 in W.P.(C) No.6853 of 2010, died on 4^th September 2016 and he was then substituted by Defendants No.14(a) & 14(b) vide order dated 13^th January 2020 of the Trial Court. Be that as it may, Petitioner No.5 in the writ petition was not substituted till disposal of the writ petition on 25^th November 2019. Nevertheless, order dated 13^th January 2020 permitting substitution of original Defendant No.14 vice Defendants No.14(a) to 14(b) was never challenged by any of the parties. After substitution was effected, Defendant No.14(a) on the date of his appearance, i.e. on 22^nd December 2021 filed a memo stating to adopt the written statement earlier filed by Defendant No.8(b), 11, 12, 15 and 16(b). It is needless to say that learned Trial Court has accepted the prayer of Defendant No.14(a) as per his memo to adopt the written statement on his part. This order of learned Trial Court dated 22^nd December 2021 is also not challenged by any of the parties till date.

5. Subsequently Defendant No.14(a) died and he was substituted vice his LRs Viz. 14(a)(i) to 14(a)(iii). Said newly substituted Defendants upon their appearance filed a written statement on their part which was accepted by the Trial Court vide order dated 2^nd December 2024.

6. Being aggrieved by order dated 2^nd December 2024 of the Trial Court, Plaintiffs approached this Court in CMP No.35 of 2025. This Court (Co-ordinate Bench) vide order dated 15^th January 2025 disposed of the CMP as withdrawn with an observation that in the event the Plaintiffs file an application for recall of order dated 2^nd December 2024 with fresh objection, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Consequently a petition dated 18^th January 2025 was filed by the Plaintiffs to recall the earlier order dated 2^nd December 2024. The learned Trial Court upon consideration has rejected the prayer of the Plaintiffs to recall its earlier order dated 2^nd December 2024, and the same is the order impugned in the present CMP.

7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that the earlier acceptance of memo of Defendant No.14(a), who was the predecessor of present Defendants No.14(a)(i) to 14(a)(iii), cannot be held in accordance with law to treat the W.S. of other Defendants as one filed from the side of these Defendants. According to Mr. Mohanty, the pleadings which were not filed in terms of the provisions contained in Order 7 and Order 8 of the CPC cannot be taken as pleadings on record on behalf of a par