IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1255 of 2006 MOST.GODA DEVI & ORS Versus RAJENDRA MAHARAJ & ORS ----------- 2 24.07.2008 Heard counsel parties. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order rejecting the additional written statement filed by the defendant, petitioners has been rightly rejected for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. This Court would find that the defendant, petitioners, are purposely trying to delay the disposal of the suit which came to be filed in the year, 1993 on an excuse that since the plaintiff had brought the amendment in the plaint in November, 2002, they (defendants) have a right to introduce a new fact beyond the scope of the amendment in the plaints in the name of additional written statement. This Court would find that the defendant, petitioners, had already filed their exhaustive written statement on 24.2.1994 and therefore when an amendment by way incorporating a subsequent event of being disposed of the suit property brought by the plaintiff was allowed in November, 2002, such additional written statement which was to be filed by the defendant, petitioners had to be confined only in respect that part of the amendment made in the plaint. The - 2 - petitioners, however had used this amendment in plaint as an opportunity to fill up their gaps and lacuna in their earlier pleading and consequently their first additional written statement introducing new set of facts, not being relevant to the amendments made in the plaint was rejected by the Court below by an order dated 31.3.2003. Such order, however, did not deter the defendant, petitioners in making second attempt in filing of their additional written statement which also on meticulous examination by the Court below was rejected on 15.04.2005 on the ground that yet again the defendant petitioners had committed the same deliberate mistake of introducing new facts in the additional written statement which were not relevant to the amendment allowed by the Court in the plaint. It has to be noted that the Civil Revision application filed by the petitioners being C.R. 1698 of 2005 as against the refusal of second additional written statement by an order dated 15.4.2005 was considered by this Court and this Court had also in its order dated 28.2.2006 (Annexure-2) did not approve such effort on the part of the defendants, petitioners. Consequently, this Civil Revision application was permitted to be withdrawn in order to enable them to file additional written statement to the extent that the amendment in - 3 - the plaint have been allowed. The defendant, petitioners now had made the order of the High Court dated 28.2.2006, a plank for filing their third additional written statement on 13.3.2006 which has been again rejected by the court below under the impugned order dated 21.6.2006 holding therein that even the third additional written statement was absolutely irrelevant and in fact had sought to incorporate new facts which ought to have been, if so required, pleaded in the main written statement filed by the defendants, petitioners on 24.2.1994. This Court has also looked into the amendment in the plaint which is Annexure-1 to the Civil Revision application as also the averments made in the third additional written statement filed by the defendants, petitioners in the light of the observation made by this Court in its order dated 28.2.2006 in Civil Revision application No. 1698 of 2005 and has found that whereas the amendment in the plaint, was confined to the plaintiffs being dispossessed of the suit property on 6.10.2002, the defendant, petitioners for the purposes of replying this allegation had sought to introduce such facts in paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of their additional written statement (Annexure-2) which were absolutely new facts and not at all related to the scope of amendment in the plaint confined to the story of - 4 - dispossession during the pendency of the suit. A base perusal of the long paragraph No.2 running into three pages in the proposed additional written statement by itself establishes that the defendant, petitioners had sought to fill up the lacuna in their original pleadings as with regard to their being possession of the land on the basis of an alleged partition of the year, 1964-65 and defendant, petitioners being in possession of the suit land prior to the institution of the suit. In the opinion of this Court, the additional written statement filed by the defendants, petitioners was, therefore, clearly beyond the scope of the amendment so introduced in the plaint and as such the same was rightly rejected by the Court below by the impugned order. That being so, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order accordingly, this Civil Revision application is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the plaintiff opposite parties for compensating them of the harassment caused to them for long six years by not only keeping the suit pending in the name of filing of successive additional written statements but also on account of filing the 3rd successive malafide additional written statement dated 23.3.2006 in teeth of the observations of this court in the order dated 28.02.2006 in C.R. No. 1698 of 2005. Such - 5 - cost must be paid by the petitioners within a month of receipt/production of a copy of this order whereafter they may have liberty to file an additional written statement strictly confined to the amended portion of the plaint. . In the result, this Civil Revision application is dismissed with the aforementioned observations and direction. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)