Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court has been filed challenging the order dated 22.7.2016, whereby the Additional District Judge, Meerut has refused to take additional written statement filed by the petitioner in the appeal. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 2.11.2017 passed on the application, whereby the pleas which the petitioner wanted to bring on record by additional written statement but were declined, were sought to be introduced by amendment of the written statement. The Additional District Judge has rejected the said application as well.

2. The petitioner was defendant in Original Suit No. 38 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff-respondent for cancellation of a sale-deed and for permanent injunction. She filed a written statement on 20.5.2011. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 on 25.8.2011 seeking amendment of the plaint. The petitioner filed objections against the same. However, the trial Court allowed the amendment application by order dated 30.8.2011 on payment of a cost of Rs. 100/- and granted time to the petitioner to file additional written statement. The Court also fixed 2.9.2011 as the next date for disposal of the application for temporary injunction. On 2.9.2011, the plaintiff brought on record the receipt Paper No. 44 Ga evidencing payment of cost of Rs. 100/- to the petitioner and by means of another application, requested for further time being granted to incorporate the amendments. The application was allowed on the same date after hearing the parties and the plaintiff-respondent was permitted to incorporate the amendment within two days and 5.9.2011 was fixed for disposal of the application for temporary injunction.

3. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the order of the trial Court dated 2.9.2011, the plaintiff-respondent carried out the amendment in the plaint. The petitioner however did not file any additional written statement as permitted by order dated 30.8.2011, while allowing the amendment. The parties led oral and documentary evidence and the suit was ultimately decreed by judgement dated 31.1.2012. The petitioner being aggrieved thereby filed Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2012. After four years of pendency of the civil appeal, the petitioner filed application 41-C seeking permission to file additional written statement in response to the pleadings which were introduced by amendment in the plaint while the suit was pending before the trial Court. The application was rejected by the appellate Court by order dated 22.7.2016. The petitioner thereafter filed another application Paper No. 45-C by which she sought permission to amend the original written statement and thereby the same plea which she sought to bring on record by means of additional written statement, were sought to be introduced. The said application has also been rejected by the appellate Court by order dated 2.11.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was never made aware of the fact that the plaintiff had carried out amendment of the plaint in pursuance of order dated 2.9.2011 nor the trial Court, after the amendment was actually carried out, granted time to the petitioner to file additional written statement. It is urged that since proper opportunity to file additional written statement was not granted at the trial stage, therefore, the petitioner rightly filed the applications before the appellate Court, but which have been rejected erroneously. He has placed reliance on the judgements of the Supreme Court in Ramnik Vallabhdas Madhvani and others v. Taraben Pravinlal Madhvani, (2004) 1 SCC 497 and Gurdial Singh and others v. Raj Kumar Aneja and others, AIR 2002 SC 1003 and on judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jai Singh and another v. N.A. Subramaniam and another, AIR 1982 Punjab & Haryana 407 and that