JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, CJ: (ORAL)

1. Present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act, 1866, is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29th July, 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the interlocutory application bearing I.A. No.37406/2024 under Section 151 read with Order VI Rule 16(c) and Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in civil suit bearing CS(OS) 180/2023 captioned “Naman Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 947/2024 Page 1 of 7 Sharma vs. Usha Sharma & Ors.”. By filing the said application, appellant(defendant no.3 in the underlying suit) sought to withdraw the earlier joint written statement dated 27th April, 2023, filed by Ms. Neha Sharma/respondent no.3 (defendant no.2 in the underlying suit) and consequently for taking on record the fresh written statement dated 19th July, 2024, filed by the appellant.

2. Mr. Ankit Jain, learned counsel for the appellant states that the defendants including the present appellant had filed a joint written statement to the suit filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff opposing the reliefs sought therein. He states that the appellant along with respondent nos. 2 & 3, had taken a stand of execution of Will dated 14th July, 2017 by late Mr. Ved Prakash Sharma, father of the appellant, in favour of Smt. Usha Sharma, the mother/respondent no.2. He states that subsequently, the appellant sought to correct her stand which was contrary to the previous stand taken above. He states that the appellant sought to now support the plaintiff’s case, on the ground that the appellant was in the family way at the time she appended her signatures on the earlier written statement the contents whereof were misrepresented by the co-defendants. It is to correct the error committed earlier that the underlying applications were filed before the learned single judge which was dismissed by way of the impugned judgement.

3. On the above facts, Mr. Ankit Jain, learned counsel for the appellant succinctly argued that:-

a. Leaving aside all the grounds raised in the underlying application or in the present appeal, the appellant is still entitled to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 947/2024 Page 2 of 7 drop/forego all the defences raised in earlier joint written statement filed in the underlying suit, and can still accept the case of the plaintiff in toto, at any stage of the proceedings. He emphasises that the appellant cannot be barred or prohibited from foregoing all her pleas in the written statement and admitting the claims in the suit of respondent no.1/plaintiff. Thus, the learned Single Judge could have permitted the appellant to file a separate independent written statement.

b. He states that propounding a Will, is a matter of election/choice by the propounder and it is by choice of the said party whether or not to put the Will as evidence in the first place. He states that mere propounding of a Will would not estop the appellant from discarding the Will in question, in any subsequent stage of the underlying suit proceedings.

c. He also lightly touches upon the issues raised in application coupled with ones raised in the present appeal viz. circumstances and medical condition of the appellant while filing the earlier written statement before the learned trial court.

4. On the above basis, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned order be set aside and the fresh written statement dated 19th July, 2024 filed by the appellant be taken on record.

5. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed LPA 947/2024 Page 3 of 7

6. It appears from the arguments that the appellant/defendant no. 3 seeks to withdraw the earlier written statement supporting the stand of defendant nos. l and 2 and instead file a fresh written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and thereby, denying the stand of defendant nos. l and 2.

7. Simi