// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1441/2008 Sita Ram S/o late Shri Chiranji Lal Agarwal and Another Versus Satya Narayan S/o Shri Mahadev Lal and Others Date of Order ::: 20.08.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri N.C. Goyal, Counsel for petitioners Dr. P.C. Jain with Ms. Uma Agarwal, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Dr. P.C. Jain, Advocate, appears for the contesting plaintiff-respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 is a Proforma respondent and the respondent No.3 is only a formal party, therefore, their service is dispensed with. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction in the trial court and, during the pendency of that suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 13th November, 2007. The amended plaint was filed on 27th November, 2007 and time was granted to the // 2 // defendant to file amended written-statement up- to 12th December, 2007 but the same was not filed and again time was granted till 11th January, 2008. The defendants failed to file amended written-statement, therefore, the trial court closed written-statement vide order dated 11th January, 2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2/petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the amended plaint was filed only on 27th November, 2007 and thereafter only two dates were given, which was not reasonable, therefore, the trial court committed an illegality in closing the written-statement and the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set-aside. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents contended that two opportunities were granted to the defendant-petitioners to file written-statement but they failed to file the same, therefore, the order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified. However, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel contended that he has no objection in case the writ petition is allowed and the defendant-petitioners are granted time to file written-statement within stipulated period to // 3 // be fixed by this Court on payment of reasonable amount of costs. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11th January, 2008 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The defendant-petitioners are permitted to file their written-statement within a period of three weeks from today on payment of costs of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only), which will be paid before or at the time of filing of amended written-statement, failing which the amended written-statement will not be taken on the record. In view of the above, there is no need to pass any order on the application dated 25th July, 2008 and the same also stand disposed of. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//