Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 155 (RAJ)

Vijay Raj v. Shankar Lal

2016-01-25

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. Looking to the fact that the affected party in the present writ petition is respondents No. 1 to 6 represented by counsel, service on rest of the respondents is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by acceptance of application filed by the respondents, whereby the written statement filed by the petitioner has been ordered to be excluded by the trial court. The trial court on noticing that the written statement was filed after 12 years form the date of filing of the suit without indicating any reason for the delay and/or seeking permission from the court for producing the said written statement, ordered on application filed by the respondents to exclude the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity so as to take the written statement on record as the petitioner would be without any defence, if the same is not permitted and the petitioner is prepared to compensate the respondents by way of costs as the suit even otherwise has not proceeded beyond framing issues. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made, it is submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed any reason for delay and, therefore, the trial court was justified in accepting the application filed by the respondents. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. It is no doubt true that there apparently is no reason for the petitioner to seek any indulgence from this Court as for a long period of over 12 years, the petitioner has chosen not to file the written statement. However, looking to the fact that the immovable property is involved in the matter and in case the written statement, which is already on record is not taken into consideration, the petitioner is bound to lose, the petitioner is granted one opportunity, of course on payment of costs, which is quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 19.11.2014 is set aside and the written statement filed by the petitioner is ordered to be taken on record subject to petitioner making payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 19.11.2014 is set aside and the written statement filed by the petitioner is ordered to be taken on record subject to petitioner making payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the plaintiffs on the next date fixed before the trial court. In case, the petitioner fails to pay the costs on the next date, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner and it would be deemed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court.