1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2714/2011 (RADHESHYAM ZUMBARLAL CHANDAK VERSUS 5TH JT. CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION, AMRAVATI & OTHERS) WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2753/2011 (RADHESHYAM ZUMBARLAL CHANDAK VERSUS JOINT CIVIL JUDGE & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri J.T. Gilda, counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Shri P.V. Bhoyar, Assistant Government Pleader, for R-1 in both the writ petitions. Shri J.J. Chandurkar, counsel for the R-2 in both the writ petitions. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 20 , 2011 . Since common questions arise for determination in these two writ petitions and the impugned orders reject the applications filed by the petitioner for filing a fresh written statement in a small cause case which was converted into a regular civil suit, they are heard together and are decided by this common order. The petitioner is the original defendant- tenant. Two separate suits were instituted by the respondent no.2-landlord against the petitioner for eviction and possession. The suits were previously registered as small cause case and in view of an order passed by this Court, the same were registered as a regular civil suits. After the suits were registered as regular civil suits, the petitioner applied for permission to file fresh written statement on 2 record though they had filed a written statement in the suits before their registration as regular civil suits. The applications were, however, rejected by the trial Court by the impugned orders. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners. The Courts rightly held that merely because the suits were registered as regular civil suits, the petitioner could not have been permitted to file a fresh written statement. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there is a material difference between the procedure in a regular civil suit and a small cause case and in such circumstances, the petitioners should have been granted permission to file a fresh written statement is liable to be rejected as though there may be a difference between the procedure in a regular civil suit and a small cause case, the written statement filed by the defendant in both suits would be the same. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure is, therefore, not well founded. So also, the petitioner cannot take the help of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 480 (Jawahar Gendalal Banode Versus Somajibhai Karsanji Patel) as it is laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment that anything done by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) would not be valid and would be liable to be questioned on the ground of lack of jurisdiction if the Civil Judge (Junior Division) did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit was liable to be tried by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). However, the petitioner in these cases is not questioning the 3 actions of the Small Causes Court or the orders passed by it but, is merely seeking permission to file a fresh written statement. In this background, the judgment reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 480 (Jawahar Gendalal Banode Versus Somajibhai Karsanji Patel) cannot be of any assistance to the case of the petitioner. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the trial Court and the same call for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE