Full Judgment
Kaluram & Another versus Ayodhya Prasad & OtheRs.Writ Petition No.1666 ”
06. 02.2013 : Shri Surendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the State.
Petitioners are defendant in the suit in question for partition and as by the impugned order dated 29.11.2012 the right of the petitioners to file the written statement was closed and the application for taking the written statement on record is also dismissed on 10.1.2013, petitioners are before this Court.
It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that due to certain mistake on their part and due to non-availability of certain documents the written statement could not be filed in time and as the written statement has already filed it is rejected only on the ground that it is filed after a period of 90 days.
Interalia contending that merely on the ground of delay the right to file the written statement should not be closed.
The written statement already filed by petitioner is directed to be taken on record, this writ petition is filed.
The suit is filed by the plaintiff, respondent No.1 Shri Ayodhya Prasad and taking note of totality of circumstances it is thought appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the petitioners to take the written statement on record.
As the case when the written statement is not taken on record and finally 2 after suit is decided without filing of written statement by the petitioners the possibility that the entire matter be remanded back when it will filed before the appellate court again on revision, it is ,therefore, not only in the interest of justice, but also expedient to the court below to take note of all the objections as may be raised by the petitioners and for the said purpose it is necessary that written statement is taken on record.
So far as delay is concerned the delay caused and consequential effect of delay on the plaintiff's right should be compensated by payment of cost.
In view of above this petition is allowed order impugned closing the right of petitioner to file the written statement and his subsequent order rejecting to taken on record the written statement filed by petitioners is quashed and court is directed to take the written statement on record subject to petitioners paying cost of Rs.1,500/- to the plaintiff/respondent No.1 Shri Ayodhya Prasad.
It is made clear that if cost is not paid, the court is free to proceed in the matter without granting any further time.
With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of.
( Rajendra Menon) Judge ss*