IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16879 of 2010 1. Chandradev Sinha S/O Late Nagina Sinha General Secretary, Kamani Employees Union, Shramik- Disha,15A, Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, P.S. Krishnapuri, Distt- Patna Versus 1. Ranen Thakur S/O Late Balram Thakur R/O 'Poushali' Circus Maidan, P.O.Katwa, Distt- Burdwan, Presently Residing At KEC International Limited , Shanbandha, P.O.Moirabandh, Distt- Bankkura, West Bengal 2. Amarnath Sharma S/O Ramji Sharma R/O Vill Bathua, P.O. Dighara, Distt- Samastipur, Bihar , Opresently Residing at KEC International Limited, C/O Mr. Pramod Prasad Singh, Manik Sarkar Ghat Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar 3. Praful Kumar Chakraborty S/O Late Prafulla Chandra Chakraborty R/O Vill &P.O.Mandua, Distt-Keonjhar, Orissa, presently residing at KEC Internationl Limited, C/O Mr. Pramod Prasad Singh, Manik Sarkar Ghat Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar 4. Shatrughan Singh S/O Late Hari Kishun Singh R/O Vill & P.O. Momindpur, Via-Hilsa, Distt-Nalanda, Bihar, presently residing at KEC International Limited, C/O Mr. Pramod Prasad Singh, Manik Sarkar Ghat Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar 5. D. Thankappan S/O Damodharan President , Kamani Employees Union, residing at Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Kurla North, Mumbai-400070 6. Civil Court, Patna through its Registrar. --------------------- 6. 18.10.2011. Heard Mr. Birendra Kant Choudhary, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by the Sub Judge, III, Patna in T.S.No.113 of 2006, whereby the 2 learned court below has debarred the defendant- petitioner from filing the written statement under order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟). The facts of the case in brief is that the plaintiff respondent has filed the title suit in question seeking decree of eviction from the suit premises described as “Shramik Disha” situated at 15A Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, Patna. A further relief by way of ad interim injunction was also sought restricting the defendant petitioner from alienating, encumbering and changing the physical feature of the suit premises. The defendant petitioner appeared in the case and filed a comprehensive written statement on 19.6.2006 but inadvertently, in place of word “written statement”, the word “show cause” was mentioned and which he sought to amend by filing an application to that effect. Subsequently, a written statement was also filed on 27.07.2007. The petitioner realizing the inadvertent error that had occasioned in the proceedings, filed an 3 application under O 6 r 17 of the code seeking to amend the word „Show Cause‟ by modifying it to read „written statement‟. The amendment was opposed by the plaintiff- respondent who also filed an application seeking to debar the defendant-petitioner from filing the written statement in view of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code. The petition of the plaintiff respondent having been allowed by the learned court below by the impugned order hence the present writ petition. It is the case of the defendant petitioner that though the written statement was filed within the maximum period as prescribed, under the Code however inadvertently it mentioned the word “show cause” in place of “written statement” and which he sought to correct by filing an appropriate application. It is stated that there was no infirmity in the prayer made by the petitioner. The prayer has been contested by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent who submits that the same was not permissible in law and the petitioner not having filed his 4 written statement within the period prescribed cannot be permitted to do so now. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on records of the proceedings as also the fact that any contest in a suit has to be fair, proper and with due opportunity to the parties and considering the fact that the defendant petitioner has admitted to restrict his contentions in response to the plaint to the pleadings made in the show cause, filed on 19.06.2006, I find that the order passed by the learned court below disallowing the amendment prayed by the petitioner to permit him to modify the words “Show Cause” mentioned in the response filed on 19.06.2006 to read as “written statement” and debarring the defendant petitioner from filing any written statement is wholly unjustified more so when the petitioner had undertaken to restrict his pleadings to the averments made in the show Cause. For the reasons aforesaid the impugned order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Court below is quashed and set aside. The application filed on behalf of the petitioner 5 dated 10.09.2007 for amending the Show Cause filed on 19.06.2006 to read as written statement is allowed. The learned court below would proceed in the suit treating the show cause filed by the defendant petitioner on 19.6.2006 as the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioners. The writ petition is allowed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)