1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6655/2007 {Smt. Sharda Devi Khandelwal Versus District & Sessions Judge, Dausa & Others} Date of Order :: 24th July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. M.M. Ranjan for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff–respondents no. 3 and 4, Ravindra Kumar and Indra Kumar, filed a suit for specific performance, declaration and injunction against defendant no.1–Ramakant Sharma and defendant no.2.-Smt. Sharda Devi. The suit was fixed on 18th October, 2006. The defendant no. 1-Ramakant had already engaged his counsel Kunj Bihari Sharma, who stated before the Court that defendant no. 1 has engaged another counsel who is coming, therefore, he is not interested in the case. Thereafter one Mr. Yogesh Kumar Jain, advocate appeared on behalf of defendant no. 1 and filed written statement alongwith Vakalatnama on behalf of defendant no.1. Thereafter Shri 2 Ashwini Kumar Sharma, and Shri Chandra Shekhar, advocates appeared and filed a written statement and their vakalatnama on behalf of defendant no.1. Therefore, two written statements were filed by two different advocates on behalf of defendant no. 1–Ramakant Sharma. Thereafter the defendant no. 1-Ramakant Sharma appeared in the court personally and moved an application in writing that he has engaged Ashwini Kumar Sharma and Chandra Shekhar, advocates on his behalf first time. The trial court took the written statement filed by Shri Ashwini Kumar Sharma and Chandra Shekhar on record and passed an order that another written statement filed on his behalf is not taken on record. The defendant no.2 sought time to file written statement on her behalf on that day and case was adjourned for 22nd November, 2006. Subsequently defendant no.2 filed an application in the trial court to review the order dated 18th October, 2006. The trial court vide its order dated 28th May, 2007 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid two orders dated 18th October, 2006 and 28th May, 2007, the defendant no. 2 has preferred this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 3 contended that the trial court committed an illegality in not taking on record the written statement of defendant no.1 filed by Shri Yogesh Kumar Jain, advocate as there is no provision in CPC to file two written statements. He contended that the only provision in CPC which was available to defendant no.1 was to amend his written statement but in no circumstances the second written statement could have been taken on record. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and also the reasons assigned by the trial court in the aforesaid two orders. The order dated 18th October, 2006 shows that on that day one written statement on behalf of defendant no. 1 was filed by Yogesh Kumar Jain, advocate and simultaneously the another written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.1 by Shri Ashwini Kumar Sharma and Shri Chandra Shekhar, advocates. Thereafter the defendant no. 1 himself appeared and moved an application in writing that he has engaged Shri Ashwini Kumar and Chandra Shekhar, advocates, therefore, trial court passed an order that written statement filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 4 Ramakant Sharma by Shri Ashwini Kumar Sharma and Chandra Shekhar, advocates may be taken on record. The learned trial court has assigned good reasons for passing the said order. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in both the orders passed by the trial court so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK