JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner preferred this writ petition before this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 23.01.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 724/2012 whereby the learned court below dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Section 151 read with Order 8, Rule 1 CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/defendant No.4 filed an application before the learned court below under Section 151 CPC read with Order 8, Rule 1 CPC stating therein that the suit property is joint family property of plaintiff/defendant No.2 to 4 which was let out on rent to Hindustan Petroleum. The summons of notice of the suit was not served on defendant No.4 (petitioner). The defendant No. 3 is the elder brother of defendant No.4 (petitioner) who is residing with defendant No.2 in the ancestral house. After the death of father of petitioner, defendant No.2 is looking after the court cases regarding the ancestral property, therefore, few blank 'vakalatnamas' were given by defendant No.4 (petitioner) to defendant No.3. Thereafter the terms between defendant No.3 and 4 became stern and defendant No.3, without obtaining signature of defendant No.4 (petitioner), filed written statement in the court below. 3. It is further stated in the application that petitioner is not residing with defendant No. 2 and 3 therefore he is not aware about the proceedings of the suit. Neither he filed written statement nor signed the same. The written statement filed by defendant Nos. 2 & 3 was not filed properly, therefore, it is necessary to put correct facts before the court which will not prejudice the rights of the parties. Rather, in absence of written statement of defendant No.4 (petitioner), his rights would be adversely effected. Therefore, he may be permitted to file written statement. The plaintiff and rest of the defendants did not opt to file reply to the application but they opposed the same and prayed for its dismissal. 4. Learned court below, after hearing the parties dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 23.01.2014 against which this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (defendant No.4). 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that signature was obtained by defendant No.3 on blank 'vakalatnama' and he had no knowledge that 'Vakalatnama' has been filed before the learned court below. Learned court below, after hearing the parties dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 23.01.2014 against which this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner (defendant No.4). 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that signature was obtained by defendant No.3 on blank 'vakalatnama' and he had no knowledge that 'Vakalatnama' has been filed before the learned court below. He further submitted that no signature was obtained on the Written Statement and without signature of petitioner same was filed in the court. 6. He further submitted that his service of summon was also not properly effected on the petitioner. The summon was received by the wife of defendant No.3 who is not living with petitioner. Therefore, his application should have been accepted by the learned court below which was wrongly dismissed. 7. Learned counsel relied on Sambhaji & Ors. v. Gangabai & Ors., 2009 (1) CCC 356 (SC) and Onkarmal v. Kishore Kumar & Ors., 2011 (3) CCC 118 (SC). 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the suit was filed on 17.12.2004 for declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiff and it is admitted position that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are brothers and defendant No.2 is mother of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and the suit property was let out by the father of petitioner Late Mr. Bhagchand Bakshi. 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of defendant No.4 (petitioner) Mr. Sunil Bakshi was filed before the court below on 12.01.2005 by Mr. J.M. Jain. Thereafter, after 90 days, the written statement was filed before the court below which was not taken on record since it was time barred. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner is regularly putting his appearance before the Court below and never denied regarding signature on 'vakalatnama' of the petitioner. No iota of evidence was produced before this court to show the enmity between the defendant Nos. 2 & 3. No complaint was ever made against the defendant No.3 or the counsel who filed 'vakalatnama' on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court or Bar Council and in absence of it mere saying that defendant No.4 (petitioner) is not having good terms with defendant Nos. 2 & 3 cannot be believed that 'vakalatnama' was misused. 2 & 3. No complaint was ever made against the defendant No.3 or the counsel who filed 'vakalatnama' on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court or Bar Council and in absence of it mere saying that defendant No.4 (petitioner) is not having good terms with defendant Nos. 2 & 3 cannot be believed that 'vakalatnama' was misused. It also reveals that vide order dated 20.07.2005 the learned trial court refused to take on record the written statement filed by defendants that order has not been challenged and the same attained finality. Thereafter, after framing the issues, the matter is fixed for evidence of plaintiff and Harprit Tuteja (PW-1) was cross examined at some length and thereafter on request of defendant No.1 the cross-examination of PW 1 was differed and after passing of 9 years, application under Section 151 read with Order 8, Rule 1 CPC was filed by the petitioner (defendant No.4). The learned court below, considering all these facts dismissed the application. 11. So far as, written statement is concerned, the same was not taken on record, the same is not signed by the petitioner but his counsel has signed the same. This has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. In the matter of Onkarmal (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, considering the fact that father of the petitioner was seriously ill therefore, he could not file his written statement on or before 17.08.2009 and ultimately father of petitioner died on 26.08.2009, allowed the writ petition and ordered to take on record the written statement. 13. In the matter of Sambhaji (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the facts of the case, held that in the case of this nature where close relatives are litigants, a liberal approach is called for and the written WS was taken on record. But, in the case in hand written statement was already filed on behalf of the petitioner (defendant No.4) signed by his counsel which was not taken on record vide order dated 28.07.2005 that order has not been challenged and now after a lapse of 9 years the petitioner filed an application for filing fresh written statement which cannot be allowed.Thus, in view of the above, this writ petition has got no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******