Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by the defendant (Pundlik Laxman Kawarse and another) challenging an order dated 12.04.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur, which rejected their application (Exh.35) seeking permission to file a written statement in Regular Civil Suit No.33/2002. The suit was between son and father, and the father/defendant was under the impression that he had already filed a written statement, but what was filed was only a reply opposing the temporary injunction application. Due to old age and illiteracy, the defendant could not consult his advocate and give necessary instructions to file the written statement earlier. The defendant argued that the written statement was merely a reiteration of the reply to the temporary injunction application. The trial court had proceeded with the suit without the written statement. The petitioner relied on several judgments, including Hindurao Tukaram Shelke v. Prakash Kallappa Awade, Nandlal Vitthaldas and Co. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Anil Kushabrao Phutane v. Madhukar Kushabrao Phutane, Sheikh Salim Haji v. Kumar, and Chintaman Kaklij v. Shivaji Bhausaheb Gadhe. The respondent opposed the petition, stating that the suit was filed in 2002 and the defendant had ample opportunity to file the written statement. The High Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the petition, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the trial court to take the written statement on record and proceed with the suit from that stage. The court emphasized that the inadvertence on the part of the defendant should not be allowed to prejudice his defense, and the suit should be decided on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Delay in Filing - Inadvertence - The court considered whether the trial court should have allowed the defendant to file a written statement when the delay was due to inadvertence, old age, and illiteracy of the defendant, and the written statement was a reiteration of the reply to the temporary injunction application. The court held that the trial court ought to have permitted the filing of the written statement to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to decide the suit on merits. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendant's application to file written statement after the suit had proceeded without it, considering the defendant's old age, illiteracy, and inadvertence.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 12.04.2005, and directed the trial court to take the written statement on record and proceed with the suit from that stage.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure
- Written Statement
- Delay Condonation
- Inadvertence
- Illiteracy
- Old Age
