// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7965/2004 Samudra S/o Mangal and Others Versus Shriram S/o Chhuttan and Another Date of Order ::: 10.04.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Sri Ram Yadav, Counsel for petitioners Shri Virendra Singh Yadav, Counsel for respondent No.1 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction in the trial court against the defendants wherein the defendants appeared in the trial court on 20th January, 2003. Thereafter written-statement was required to be filed but it was not filed in time and ultimately it was filed on 25th March, 2004 which is clear from the order-sheet of the trial court dated 7th April, 2004. The counsel for the plaintiff raised an objection that written-statement has been filed after expiry of period of limitation, therefore, it should not be taken on the record. The trial court vide its order dated 17th September, 2004 accepted the submission of the counsel for the plaintiff and closed the written-statement of the defendants. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the defendants contended that // 2 // filing of written-statement was delayed for the reason that the plaintiff himself filed an application in the trial court that he does not want any relief against the defendants No.1 and 2, whereas the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the period of 90 days for filing the written-statement expired on 20th April, 2003 and no sufficient cause has been shown for filing the written-statement at a belated stage, therefore, the learned trial court was right in passing the impugned order and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 17th September, 2004. It is correct that the defendants appeared in the trial court on 20th January, 2003 and the written-statement should have been filed before 20th April, 2003. The impugned order reveals that the counsel for the plaintiff moved an application in the trial court that he does not want any relief against the defendants No.1 and 2. This may be a good reason for not filing the written-statement well in time. A right of filing the written- statement by the defendants is very important and valuable right and the defendants should not easily be deprived of availing that right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has now also held that the provisions in this regard are not mandatory but they are directory in nature. In these circumstances I think that ends of justice will meet in case the written-statement filed by the defendants on 25th March, 2004 is taken on the record. So far delay of proceedings is concerned, the plaintiff can be compensated by way of costs. // 3 // Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17th September, 2004 passed by the trial court is set- aside. The written-statement filed by the defendants in the trial court is taken on the record at the costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only), which will be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that in case the amount of costs is not paid within the aforesaid time then the written-statement, filed by the defendants, will not be taken on record and right of defendants to file written- statement will be deemed to have been closed and no further opportunity will be granted to the defendants for the same. Cost is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 4 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.6853/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7965/2004 Samudra S/o Mangal and Others Versus Shriram S/o Chhuttan and Another Date of Order ::: 10.04.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Sri Ram Yadav, Counsel for petitioners Shri Virendra Singh Yadav, Counsel for respondent No.1 #### 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//