Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 186 (MP)

Hemant v. Ujjawala

2020-02-05

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the 17th Additional District Judge, Indore (M.P.) in R.C.S.A. No. 5485/2019. 2. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a civil suit under Order 7 rule 1 of CPC against the petitioner for declaration of title as well as permanent injunction, possession and partition and the Court below vide order dated 4.10.2019 has closed the right of the petitioner to lead the evidence. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application on 21.10.2019 for taking the said reply/written statements on record, but the same has been rejected by order dated 20.10.2019. Against the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for taking written statement on record. He further submits that the case was fixed for 4.10.2019 for filing the written statement. However, on 4.10.2019, as counsel for the petitioner was not well he, therefore, could not get the knowledge of fixing the case on 4.10.2019 and, therefore, on that date the petitioner as well as his counsel failed to appear before the Court and, therefore, the Court below has rejected his claim for filing the written statement. He submits that if the petitioner is not granted one more opportunity to file the written statement, then the right of the petitioner would be effected and he will be debarred from getting justice. 5. After hearing the submission of the leaned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record it appears that on 25.9.2019, counsel for the respondent (petitioner herein) was present before the Court below and on that date the matter was fixed on 4.10.2019 for filing written statement. However, on 4.10.2019, neither the counsel for the respondent appeared nor filed his written statement and in the aforesaid circumstances, the Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner to file the written statement. However, on 4.10.2019, neither the counsel for the respondent appeared nor filed his written statement and in the aforesaid circumstances, the Court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner to file the written statement. By order dated 22.10.2019, the Court below has rejected the application on the ground that on 4.10.2019, an opportunity was granted to file written statement to the suit of the plaintiffs and moreover, the application filed by the respondent (petitioner herein) under Order 47 rules 1 and 2 of CPC is related to review of judgment, but not for review of the order just at the initial stage of a civil suit. And on this ground, the Court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 47 rule 1 of CPC. 6. However, in light of the aforesaid and after perusal the record, I am of the view that, for just and proper decision of the case, an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to file the written statement. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the miscellaneous petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to take the written statement filed by the petitioner on record, subject to payment cost of Rs. 3,000/-. It is made clear that no further adjournments shall be granted to the petitioner to file the written statements. 8. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.