Revansiddappa and ors. Vs. Siddaramappa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
code of civil procedure - 1908-order 8 rule 1-written statement-whether the defendant can replace the written statement already filed before the court-held-there is no provision in the cpc to replace the written statement once filed by the parties-if the defendant wants to incorporate or ad a new paragraph or new events, they can do so by filing an application under order 6 rule 17 cpc.;writ petition dismissed. - income tax act,1961[c.a.no.43/1961] -- sections 158-ba & 143: [v.gopala gowda & arali nagaraj, jj] assessment same income which was assessed as undisclosed income for block period in block assessment - held, the assessment of undisclosed income relating to block period shall have to be made only in accordance with the provisions of chapter xiv-b of income-tax act, 1961; which..........additional written statement. after filing of the additional written statement, the petitioners filed application seeking permission of the court to withdraw the earlier written statement filed by them and to substitute the new written statement. the application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the court below. challenging the legality and correctness of the present petition is filed.i have heard sri p.s. mali patil for the petitioners.2. the only question to be considered by this court in this petition is whether under order 8, rule 1 of the cpc the defendant can replace the written statement already filed by them. in the entire cpc, there is no provision to replace the written statement once filed by the parties. if the defendants are so willing to incorporate or add a.....

Judgment:
ORDER

K.L. Manjunath, J.

1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 325 of 2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gulbarga. In the suit, the petitioners filed the written statement and thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint. The amendment application filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioners also filed additional written statement. After filing of the additional written statement, the petitioners filed application seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the earlier written statement filed by them and to substitute the new written statement. The application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the Court below. Challenging the legality and correctness of the present petition is filed.

I have heard Sri P.S. Mali Patil for the petitioners.

2. The only question to be considered by this Court in this petition is whether under Order 8, Rule 1 of the CPC the defendant can replace the written statement already filed by them. In the entire CPC, there is no provision to replace the written statement once filed by the parties. If the defendants are so willing to incorporate or add a new paragraph or new events, they can do so by filing an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC. In the circumstances, I do not fined any reasons to interfere with the orders passed by the Trial Court.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. The rejection of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners to file application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC. If such an application is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be considered by the Court below on merits and in accordance with law.