IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2016 of 2007 KRISHNA KANT GUPTA & ORS. Versus SAVITRI DEVI & ORS. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr.Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate with M/s.Ravi Shankar Dwivedi, Sangeeta Sharma, Ranjan Kr. Dubey & Laxman Lal Pandey, Advocates For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advocate *** 7. 17.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. From the impugned order it appears that the ground taken by learned counsel for the defendants was that due to laches on the part of earlier counsel, no additional written statement could be filed in reply to the amendment of the plaint. Therefore, prayer was made by the defendants for permission to file additional written statement. The learned court below has noticed that the case is at the argument stage and, therefore, it would not be proper to allow filing of the additional written statement as it will amount to reopening the case which is of the year, 1980. Learned senior counsel for the defendants-petitioners on instruction submits 2 that the defendants will not lead any further evidence in support of their additional written statement and they will proceed with the argument as it is. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs- opposite parties submits that after amendment of the plaint, the defendants had amended their written statement. Thus, they got an opportunity to make necessary amendment in the written statement which was allowed with cost and, therefore, they were not entitled to file additional written statement at this belated stage. Hence, the court below has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners in this respect. Considering the fact that the ground of laches on the part of the counsel was made out for filing the additional written statement and the fact that the stand has been taken by the defendants through the learned senior counsel that they will proceed with the argument of the case and they will not claim any right to examine any witness or produce any further evidence in support of the additional written statement at their own risk, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 3.9.2007 3 passed by the Subordinate Judge VI, Gopalganj in Title Suit No. 5/1980 is set aside. The court below shall take additional written statement on record at the risk of the defendants and proceed with the case for argument. The application is, thus, disposed of. B.T. (J. N. Singh, J.)