1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1354/2007 (Shri Krishna & Others Versus Heera Lal & Others) Date of Order :: 31st August, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Amit Jain, Counsel for the petitioner(s) Shri G.S. Gautam Counsel for the respondent(s) BY THE COURT: At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property in dispute in the trial court, wherein the defendants-petitioners filed their written-statement. The plaintiffs filed an application in the trial court that since the written-statement filed by defendants has not been verified by any of the defendants and the registered addresses of the defendants have not been mentioned on it, therefore, their written statement should not be taken on record. Subsequently, the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC for amendment in the written statement 2 contending therein that due to typing mistake, the verification in the written-statement could not be made and similarly the registered addresses could not be mentioned; and the nature of the suit is not going to be affected in case the amendment sought is allowed. The learned trial court rejected the application of defendants for amendment in the written- statement and allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs and passed an order that written-statement will not be taken on record. Subsequently the defendants filed an application that their written-statement was not taken on record for want of verification and registered addresses of the defendants thereon, therefore, they may be granted permission to file additional written- statement. The said application was also dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 29th September, 2006 in view of earlier order dated 5th August, 2006. The defendants further filed an application under Order 6 Rule 14 A (6) and Order 6 Rule 15 CPC. The said application was also disposed of by the trial court vide order dated 10th January, 2007. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders the defendants have preferred this writ petition. 3 The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that due to typing mistake or human error, the verification could not be made and registered address of the defendants could not be mentioned on the written-statement and as and when they came to know about it when plaintiffs filed an application in this regard, they moved an application in the trial court for amendment in the written-statement, but trial court wrongly dismissed their application for amendment in the written-statement. He contended that right of filing of written- statement is a valuable right and in case the impugned order is not set-aside, their valuable right will be defeated. So far as other orders regarding appointment of Commissioner are concerned, he did not seriously challenge the said orders. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned orders and contended that such mistakes like non- mentioning of verification etc. cannot be treated lightly and in these circumstances, the trial court was right in rejecting their application for amendment in the written- statement. I have considered the submissions of 4 learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute in between both the parties that written-statement was filed in time. The defendants could not verify the written statement by any of the defendants. Similarly the registered addresses were not mentioned on it. As and when the plaintiffs filed an application for not taking the said written- statement on record for want of proper verification on it, the defendants moved an application for amendment in the written- statement by way of inserting the verification and registered addresses of the defendants. It is relevant to mention that by way of amendment in the written-statement, the nature of suit or written-statement was not going to be changed. It was merely a legal requirement that written-statement ought to have been verified and registered addresses should have been given over it. In case the same could not be given, then it should have been allowed by way of an amendment, particularly when an application had already been filed by the defendants before deciding the application of the plaintiffs for not taking the written-statement on record. The right to file written-statement is a valuable 5 right and in case the application for amendment is not allowed, then defendants will not be able to contest the suit. Therefore, looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that learned trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the defendants for amendment in the written-statement and in allowing the application of the plaintiffs for not taking the written-statement on record. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 5th August, 2006 cannot be allowed to be sustained and the same is hereby set-aside. The defendants have already filed verification as well as registered addresses of the defendants. In these circumstances, I allow the application of the defendants for amendment in the written- statement. The verification and registered addresses furnished by defendants may be taken on record. The written statement filed by defendants is consequently taken on record. So far as another order regarding appointment of Commissioner is concerned, I do not find any error in it and no interference in it is called for. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 5th 6 August, 2006 and 29th September, 2006, both, are set-aside. The verification of the written statement and registered address of the defendants furnished by defendants are taken on record. The net result is that written- statement filed by the defendants is taken on record. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK/