THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2629 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 29.04.2010 in I.A. No.196 of 2010 in O.S. No.996 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant no.1, under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to set aside the exparte order dated 5.6.2008, was dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant no.1 contended that due to some communication gap between the petitioner and his counsel in the trial court, written statement has not been filed, and now, it has been filed along with the petition, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order and allow the application. 3. On other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/ plaintiff contended that no explanation has been given for the delay of about 2 ½ years in filing the written statement, and that inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, the petitioner has not filed the written statement and his right is rightly forfeited, and so, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the petitioner/defendant no.1 and the respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4, seeking permanent injunction. After receipt of summons in the suit, the petitioner engaged an advocate by giving vakalat. The advocate made appearance in the trial court on behalf of the petitioner and the suit was coming for filing his written statement. As written statement was not filed, right to file written statement was forfeited. No doubt, some laches are there on the part of the petitioner in filing the written statement in time. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is some communication gap between the petitioner and his counsel in the trial court. The possibility of counsel for the petitioner in the trial court in not informing the petitioner with regard to filing of written statement cannot be ruled out. Further more, trial court, while dismissing the petition, gave liberty to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings in the main case. But, without there being any pleading, he cannot let in evidence because any amount of evidence without pleading is valueless. The petitioner filed his written statement along with the petition. In view of the fact that substantial rights of the parties are involved in the suit, the petition can be allowed. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the impugned order. No costs. The trial court shall receive the written statement filed by the petitioner and thereafter dispose of the suit in accordance with law. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 11.3.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2629 of 2010 11.3.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2629 of 2010 11.3.2011 Between: P.Subramanyam Mudali …Petitioner And V.Mani Naidu & others …Respondents