THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.4867 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.569 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal, against the respondents, for the relief of declaration of title and ancillary reliefs, in respect of the suit schedule property. Defendants 2 and 3, i.e. respondents 1 and 2 herein (for short ‘the respondents’), filed written-statement, and it was adopted by the other defendants. Arguments were heard, and the suit was posted to 06-11-2009, for judgment. At that stage, it was noticed that the written- statement filed in the suit did not contain the signatures of the concerned defendants. The trial Court re-opened the suit, suo motu, to bring that fact to the notice of the respondents. At that stage, respondents filed I.A.No.43 of 2010, with a prayer to receive the written-statement, which contains their signatures. The I.A. was opposed by the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the I.A., through order dated 20- 09-2010. The petitioner challenges the same. Sri B.S. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no written-statement, in the eye of law, since it was not signed by the respondents, and the trial Court ought to have eschewed the same from its consideration. He contends that the I.A filed by the respondents was untenable in law, and there is no provision in the C.P.C., that permits the trial Court, to accept the written-statement, at the fag end of the proceedings, and after the trial was concluded. A written-statement is required to be signed by the parties, who filed it, and it cannot be received, unless it is signed, as required under law. The respondents filed the written-statement in the suit, somewhere in the year 2002, without signing it. The trial Court did not notice that flaw, at any stage. It was only after the arguments were concluded and the matter was reserved for judgment, that the trial Court noticed the defect. The suit was re-opened suo motu, to bring that fact to the notice of the respondents. With a view to rectify that defect, the respondents filed the I.A. The application was filed under Section 151 C.P.C., by invoking the inherent powers of the Court. The petitioner strongly opposed the I.A. Even if it is to be held that the I.A. is not sustainable in law, and Section 151 C.P.C., cannot be invoked for this purpose, the fact remains that the trial Court was under obligation to return the written-statement of the respondents, when it noticed, that the written-statement was not signed. In such an event, the respondents would have an opportunity to rectify the defect, and re-present the matter. The same exercise is sought to be undertaken by filing a separate I.A. Neither the petitioner can be said to have suffered any detriment, nor the respondents have derived any undue benefit by filing the I.A. Accidental omission is rectified. It is not as if any new plea was raised. Further, both the parties have gone to the trial, on the basis of that very written-statement. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-11-2010. KO