IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13952 of 2010 BHAGWAT PRASAD SAH & ORS Versus HEM CHANDRA SAH & ORS with CWJC No.14098 of 2010 BHAGWAT PRASAD SAH & ORS Versus HEM CHANDRA SAH & ORS ----------- 5. 31.03.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 4 in both the applications. The petitioners are the tenant in Title Suit No. 20 of 1986 and the respondents are plaintiffs. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.8.2008 of the Munsif, lst, Kishanganj debarring them from filing the additional written statement and then rejecting their prayer for recall of the order on 17.11.2008 refusing to recall the former order. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit is of the year 1986. The plaintiffs themselves filed an application for amendment which was allowed on 16.1.2002. On 6.2.2002 the petitioners were permitted to file additional written statement which was done on 11.9.2002. The suit then came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 24.2.2003 and was restored on 21.5.2005. The plaintiffs then pressed their earlier objection that the additional written statement was too bulky and contained unnecessary materials. The trial court on 3.5.2008 directed the petitioners to file concise written statement which it is submitted has subsequently been filed. Counsel for the defendants submitted that the petitioners are unnecessarily trying to delay disposal of the suit. The additional written statement filed was not to the satisfaction of the Court which gave further directions which have not been complied with. The copy of the order dated 3.5.2008 directing filing of a concise written statement has been placed before the Court. It is for a party to the litigation to decide the mode, method, and strategy for contesting litigation. Quite obviously this shall have to be within the permissible confines of law. But in that garb the Court cannot dictate in what manner a written statement should be filed. It may contain frivolous materials. It shall be for the Court to shift the grain from the chaff. If the pleadings/written statement so filed contain scandalous materials the issue may be entirely different which is not the case presently. On 3.5.2008 the trial court directed the petitioners to file a concise additional written statement. To this Court that perhaps was not very proper. In any event of the matter the petitioners contend that they have in fact filed the fresh additional written statement. To this Court the entire issue is now academic. If a written statement is on record to the satisfaction of the defendants the duty of the Court is to adjudicate on basis of the same and not to dictate the parties in what manner they shall file their affidavit. In so far as the submission on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were seeking to delay disposal of the suit, from the sequence of events narrated on behalf of the petitioners, the respondents must equally share the blame. The impugned orders dated 27.8.2008 and 17.11.2008 are accordingly set aside. The writ applications are allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)