1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4566 OF 2004. SHANKARLAL RAMNARAYAN AGRAWAL, R/O. GONDIA. .. VERSUS .. RAJENDRAKUMAR MUNNADHAR AGRAWAL, R/O.SAINTALA, DISTT. BALANGIR (ORISSA) AND OTHERS. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.P.Bhandarkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.V.Vastani, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : MARCH 04, 2010. 1. This petition by plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No.84 of 1985 is directed against order passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Gondia below application of defendant No.1 permitting defendant No.1 to file a written statement. The suit was filed in the year 1985 and upon transfer to Gondia was renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No.273/2000. Defendant No.1 has filed pursis on 25.04.1991 stating that he has no concern with the suit properties and therefore, his name should be removed from the array of the defendants. This was directed by the Civil Judge to be treated as written statement by an order dated 25th April, 1991. Defendant No.1 continued to be arrayed as defendant in the suit but did not file any other written statement. On 2nd April, 2004 he filed present application for being permitted to file additional written statement, which application was allowed by the learned trial Judge. 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once having given admission that he had no concern with the suit properties it was not open for defendant No.1 to file comprehensive written statement raising claim for almost half of the suit properties. 3. The learned counsel for respondent / defendant No.1 submits that pursis dated 25th April, 1991 was filed by his client at the instance of Buddhulal Agrawal who was defendant No.2 in the suit. He, however, does not dispute that his client did file such pursis. 4. Now, if the pursis was filed by misrepresentation or fraud being played, the Defendant No.1 shall prove it. If he fails to prove, admission would stand as it is. In face of the contention of defendant No.1 that the pursis was given because of some misrepresentation by Buddhulal, it would be improper to shutout an opportunity to defendant No.1 to prove this fact and if he fails to prove the same, admission is always there on record, of which the plaintiff can take advantage. 5. In view of this, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. The learned Judge would proceed to entertain written statement as additional written statement keeping the pursis, which has been treated as first written statement, on record. The learned Judge may ignore the admission in the pursis only if defendant No.1 proves that the pursis was filed on account of some misrepresentation. 3 7. The learned Judge may, undoubtedly, endeavour to dispose of the suit, since it is 25 years old, as early as possible, preferably by the end of this year. JUDGE RR..