1 SB Civil Writ Petition No.507/2009 Kedar Mal. vs. Jagdish Chandra & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.507/2009 Kedar Mal. vs. Jagdish Chandra & Anr. Date : 23.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.SP Sharma for Mr.NR Choudhary, for petitioner. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Since July, 1998, the defendant/petitioner was seeking opportunity to file written statement and ultimately, in the year 1998 itself i.e. On 7.10.1998, ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner. He moved application for setting aside the ex-parte order which was allowed vide order dated 4.3.1999. The petitioner did not file written statement for 22 occasions and ultimately, on 12.9.2002, his opportunity to file written statement was closed. The petitioner did nothing for 5 years and thereafter submitted this application on 19.7.2007 seeking permission to file written statement. According to learned counsel for the 2 SB Civil Writ Petition No.507/2009 Kedar Mal. vs. Jagdish Chandra & Anr. petitioner, since on 24.9.2008, an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed and a new party was added and since he is to file the written statement, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner may also be allowed to file written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court (delivered by me) in the case of Manik Singh & Ors. vs. Kumawat Panchayat & Ors. reported in 2004(3) CDR 1813 (Raj.) wherein opportunity was granted to the defendant to file written statement even after 33 adjournments. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts of the present case which are referred above and the facts of the case of Manik Singh (supra). In the case of Manik Singh (supra), opportunity to file written statement was continuously given without objection of the plaintiff by the trial court and thereafter, right to file written statement was closed on the objection of the plaintiff. In that case, this 3 SB Civil Writ Petition No.507/2009 Kedar Mal. vs. Jagdish Chandra & Anr. Court observed that in such a matter, serious consequences will result in case the written statement of the defendant will not be allowed to be taken on record which was not filed when the plaintiff himself was party to the prolongment of the court proceedings. In the present case, the conduct of the petitioner/defendant is loudly speaking against him. In the year 1998, he suffered an order of ex- parte but that order was set aside and thereafter, he was given 22 opportunities before 12.9.2002 and thereafter, his right to file written statement was closed. It is not a case where the defendant's written statement was filed before his right was closed. Be it as it may, he was satisfied with this order for 5 years and thereafter, he submitted application for filing written statement. The plea that since other defendant will file written statement because he was impleaded as party in the year 2008, therefore, there will be no harm in taking the written statement of the defendant and in case, the written statement of the defendant will not be taken on record, he will suffer great hardship and to the extent of irreparable injury, is not 4 SB Civil Writ Petition No.507/2009 Kedar Mal. vs. Jagdish Chandra & Anr. tenable. Any party can inflict injury upon himself and if it is so, then it is not for the Court to remedy that injury. There is no reason for the Court to allow the written statement on an application filed after 5 years of closure of right to file written statement by the trial court. In view of the above reasons, the facts of Manik Singh's case (supra) have no application to the present case. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya