Santosh Devi and ors. Vs. Adj (Fast Track) No. 2 and ors.

Santosh Devi and ors. vs Adj (Fast Track) No. 2 and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Dec 05, 2007

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/771926

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/771926
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Prakash Tatia, J.
Decided On: Dec 05, 2007
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7099/2007
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Article 226/227--Civil Procedure Code, 1908--Order 7 Rule 11--Written statement--Taking on record--On 02.05.2007 application under Order 7 Rule 11 was decided and defendants right to filed written statement was closed--Petitioners submitted written statement on next date--Petitioners were und...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santosh Devi and ors.

Respondent

Adj (Fast Track) No. 2 and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 2008(2)WLN101

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 226/227--civil procedure code, 1908--order 7 rule 11--written statement--taking on record--on 02.05.2007 application under order 7 rule 11 was decided and defendants right to filed written statement was closed--petitioners submitted written statement on next date--petitioners were under impression that case was fixed for written statement--held, trial court not justified in dismissing application for taking into record the written statement.;writ petition allowed. - prakash tatia, j.1. none present for the respondents after service, therefore, heard learned counsel for the petitioners as notices were issued for final disposal of the writ petition.2. it appears that on 02.05.2007, an application under order 7 rule 11 cpc was heard and decided by the trial court and on the same day, the defendants' right to file written statement was closed.3. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners submitted written statement on next date and also submitted an application that petitioners were under impression that the case was fixed for the written statement in usual course after the dismissal of the application filed under order 7 rule 11 cpc. the petitioners' application for taking on record the written statement was dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dt. 24.09.2007. the petitioners submitted that a lenient view may be taken and the petitioners' written statement which has already been submitted be taken on record.4. since on 02.05.2007 application filed under order 7 rule 11 cpc was dismissed and, therefore, there might have been reason for defendants to believe that case was fixed for filing written statement, therefore, in this situation, the court should have taken a lenient view and could have taken on record the written statement filed by the defendant on record.5. in view of the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the order of the trial court dt. 24.09.2007 is set aside and the written statement of the petitioners be treated to be on record. the petitioners-defendants shall pay the cost of rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiffs and in case, the cost is not accepted then the same be deposited in the trial court by the defendants. copy of this order be sent to the trial court.

Full Judgment

Prakash Tatia, J.

1. None present for the respondents after service, therefore, heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as notices were issued for final disposal of the writ petition.

2. It appears that on 02.05.2007, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was heard and decided by the trial Court and on the same day, the defendants' right to file written statement was closed.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners submitted written statement on next date and also submitted an application that petitioners were under impression that the case was fixed for the written statement in usual course after the dismissal of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The petitioners' application for taking on record the written statement was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dt. 24.09.2007. The petitioners submitted that a lenient view may be taken and the petitioners' written statement which has already been submitted be taken on record.

4. Since on 02.05.2007 application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed and, therefore, there might have been reason for defendants to believe that case was fixed for filing written statement, therefore, in this situation, the Court should have taken a lenient view and could have taken on record the written statement filed by the defendant on record.

5. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the order of the trial Court dt. 24.09.2007 is set aside and the written statement of the petitioners be treated to be on record. The petitioners-defendants shall pay the cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiffs and in case, the cost is not accepted then the same be deposited in the trial Court by the defendants. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2007 Same Parties Santosh Devi and ors. vs Adj (Fast Track) No. 2 and ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Prakash Tatia, J.

Land Acquisition