IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5267/2004 Kamla Salaria W/o late Shri Lal Chand Salaria and Others Versus The Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Behror, District Alwar & Others Date of Order ::: 21.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Saransh Sani and Ms. Neelam Pareek, Advocates, for Shri G.K. Garg, Counsel for petitioners Shri R.D. Sharma, Advocate, for Shri V.K. Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.2 Shri M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court wherein summons were served on defendants No.1 to 3 on 20th March, 2004 and they appeared before the trial court on 24th March, 2004. The defendants No.1 to 3 filed an application under Order 11 Rules 14 & 15 read with Order 13 Rules 1 & 10 CPC. The said application was fixed for filing reply by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended before the trial court on 5th July, 2004 that he does not want to file any reply to the application filed by the defendants No.1 to 3. The learned trial court, vide order dated 5th July, 2004 dismissed the application of the defendants No.1 to 3 and, on the same day, closed the written-statement of the defendants No.1 to 3. The said order closing the written-statement of the defendants No.1 to 3 is under challenge in this writ petition preferred by the defendants No.1 to 3/petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that soon after service of summons upon the defendants No.1 to 3 they put their appearance in the trial court and moved the application under Order 11 Rules 14 & 15 read with Order 13 Rules 1 & 10 CPC wherein the counsel for the plaintiff sought time to file reply and the matter remained pending on that application and only on 5th July, 2004 it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that he does not want to file any reply to the application; the application was argued and the same was dismissed on 5th July, 2004, but the trial court did not grant even one opportunity thereafter to file written-statement to the defendant-petitioners, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court is liable to be set-aside. So far as the delay of proceedings is concerned, the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners contended that the same could have been compensated by awarding costs in the matter. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.2 as well as other respondents contended that the impugned order passed by the trial court is absolutely legal and justified, and no interference in it, is called for by this Court and the writ petition be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court while closing the written-statement of the defendant-petitioners. The service of summons on defendant-petitioners was affected on 20th March, 2004 and they put their appearance on 24th March, 2004; they moved an application under Order 11 Rules 14 & 15, which remained pending up-to 5th July, 2004, and it was dismissed only on 5th July, 2004 and, on the same day, the written- statement of the defendant-petitioners was closed on the ground that the written-statement has not been filed within a period of 90 days. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent as well as the defendant- respondents also. The right of defendants to file written-statement is a valuable right, which should not be denied normally. The provisions relating to filing of written-statement are directory in nature. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and the same is liable to be set-aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5th July, 2004 so far it relates to closing of evidence of defendants No.1 to 3/petitioners is concerned, the same is set-aside. The defendants No.1 to 3 are permitted to file their written- statement on or before 1st July, 2008 on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), which will be paid at the time or before filing the written-statement. It is made clear that in case the written-statement is no filed or the amount of costs is not paid on or before the aforesaid date, then the written-statement of the defendant-petitioners will be deemed to be closed and no further opportunity in this regard will be granted to the petitioners. So far as this writ petition is concerned, costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.4482/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5267/2004 Kamla Salaria W/o late Shri Lal Chand Salaria and Others Versus The Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Behror, District Alwar & Others Date of Order ::: 21.05.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Saransh Sani and Ms. Neelam Pareek, Advocates, for Shri G.K. Garg, Counsel for petitioners Shri R.D. Sharma, Advocate, for Shri V.K. Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.2 Shri M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//