[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3702 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3702 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 3702 OF 2008 NIRMALA WD/O. SUNDERRAO RELE AND ORS. ... PETITIONERS. VS. MANDA G. RELE AND ANR. ... RESPONDENTS. SHRI S.D.MOGRE FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. A.M.RANPISE FOR THE RESPONDENT 1 & 2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : June 16, 2008. : June 16, 2008. : June 16, 2008. P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the order, dated 23rd April, 2008 whereby the application filed by the defendants for filing fresh written statement has been rejected. 2. The application is filed on the basis that in view of the order of return of the plaint, the defendant gets a right to file a fresh written statement in the matter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Order VII Rule 10-A, Sub- rule 4(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and he has [ 2 ] laid emphasis on the word "plaint" therein . According to him it is the plaint alone which is returned and presented and the proviso does not talk about the other proceedings alongwith the plaint which are returned and therefore, a fresh written statement is required to be filed by the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon decision in case of (1) AMAR CHAND IRANI (1) AMAR CHAND IRANI (1) AMAR CHAND IRANI VS. VS. VS. UNION OF INDIA, reported in AIR 1973 sc 313; (2) UNION OF INDIA, reported in AIR 1973 sc 313; (2) UNION OF INDIA, reported in AIR 1973 sc 313; (2) PAWAN PAWAN PAWAN KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR SETHI VS. SMT. KIRAN @ HEMA , reported in SETHI VS. SMT. KIRAN @ HEMA , reported in SETHI VS. SMT. KIRAN @ HEMA , reported in AIR AIR AIR 1999 (Punjab & Harayana) 251; (3) HANAMANTHAPPA 1999 (Punjab & Harayana) 251; (3) HANAMANTHAPPA 1999 (Punjab & Harayana) 251; (3) HANAMANTHAPPA VS. VS. VS. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA, reported in AIR 1997 SC. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA, reported in AIR 1997 SC. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA, reported in AIR 1997 SC. 1307. 1307. 1307. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has supported the impugned order and submitted that the entire record and proceedings had gone to the court where the plaint has been presented and he has relied upon the order, dated 21st January, 2008 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, which also speaks of transferring the suit from City Civil Court to Small Causes Court, and it is directed therein that the "record and proceedings" shall be transferred. 5. I have perused the impugned Order as well as the authorities cited above by the Counsel for the petitioners. None of the authorities cited by the learned Counsel speak that the defendants can file [ 3 ] fresh written statement in the matter as of right when the plaint is returned. In view of this, the direction sought is not necessary looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that since three written statements filed by the petitioners are already on record. It is however clarified that the said written statements shall be deemed to be written statements in the plaint which is presented in Small Causes Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were desirous of incorporating certain legal submissions in the written statement. In the interest of justice, I grant liberty to the petitioners to raise such legal submissions before the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same. 6. With the observations and liberty as aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of. ...... [A.A.Sayed,J.] [A.A.Sayed,J.] [A.A.Sayed,J.]