Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.347 of 1991, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 13/06/2013 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, rejecting their application (Exhibit 117) to file an additional written statement. The suit was filed by the respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) for specific performance of an agreement to sell land bearing Survey No.704, Hissa No.1+2/8, admeasuring 20 Ares, situated at Nashik. The plaintiff alternatively sought damages of Rs.15,25,000/- with interest. The defendants (original defendant No.1 and defendant No.2) had filed a joint written statement on 20/03/1992, accepting the agreement to sell executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. After 22 years, the petitioners (legal heirs of the original defendant No.1, who had died) sought to file an additional written statement raising new pleas, including that the suit property was agricultural land and the agreement was void. The trial court rejected the application, observing that the proposed additional pleas were not necessary for adjudication and that allowing the application would cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, examined the impugned order and found that the trial court had exercised its discretion properly. The High Court noted that the original written statement had been filed long ago, the suit was at an advanced stage, and the proposed additional pleas were not essential for deciding the suit. The court held that allowing the application would cause undue delay and prejudice to the plaintiff. The High Court also observed that the petitioners had not explained the inordinate delay of 22 years. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the trial court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Written Statement - Delay and Prejudice - Order 8 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 9, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The petitioners sought to file an additional written statement after 22 years from the filing of the original written statement, raising new pleas regarding the suit property being agricultural land and the agreement being void. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the proposed additional pleas were not necessary for adjudication and would cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The High Court upheld the rejection, holding that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised and that allowing the application would cause undue delay and prejudice to the plaintiff. (Paras 4-8) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Interference with Discretionary Orders - The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, will not interfere with a discretionary order passed by a trial court unless the order is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from a jurisdictional error. In the present case, the trial court's order rejecting the application for additional written statement was found to be reasonable and not warranting interference. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application (Exhibit 117) filed by the petitioners (original defendants) seeking to file an additional written statement after 22 years of filing the original written statement, and whether the High Court should interfere with such discretionary order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the trial court's order dated 13/06/2013 rejecting the application (Exhibit 117) for filing an additional written statement. The court held that the trial court had exercised its discretion properly and that no interference was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC
- Order 8 Rule 9 CPC
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
- delay in filing additional written statement
- prejudice to opposite party
- discretion of trial court
- scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
