The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order where the Small Causes Court rejected an application for filing an additional written statement. The Court held that the applicant failed to make out a case for exercising discretion to allow a late filing, noting the trial was part-heard.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
908-wp-10664-2018.odt
Shailaja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10664 OF 2018
Kirit Kumar Gangaram Panchal ] Petitioner Vs. Yogesh Karsandas Kapadia and others. ] Respondents
Mr. J.P. Daiya i/b G.H. Keluskar, for Petitioner. Mr. S.M. Vyas, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2018.
P.C.
Heard Mr. Daiya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 at length.
1 of 5
908-wp-10664-2018.odt
statement was that the suit is not maintainable as there is inter se serious dispute between the persons claiming to be landlords of the suit property. Defendant No.2 also relied on public notices issued by M/s. Malvi Ranchhoddas & Co. Advocates. Defendant No.2 further contended that the plaintiffs are not the landlords of the suit property and consequently, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In short, he submitted that defendant No.2 did not deal with the grounds of eviction made out by the plaintiffs in the suit and the written statement was restricted only to maintainability of the suit. He submitted that in paragraph 6 of the written statement, it was asserted that rest of the written statement is without prejudice to the contentions raised earlier. In paragraph 12, it is asserted that defendant No.2 is not filing any detailed written statement in view of his contention that the plaintiffs are not landlords of the suit property. In paragraph 13, it is asserted that it may not be treated as defendant No.2 has admitted contentions and statements made in the plaint which have not been specifically dealt with in the written statement.
2 of 5
908-wp-10664-2018.odt
3 of 5
908-wp-10664-2018.odt
8. Order-8, Rule-9 of the C.P.C reads thus;
“8. New ground of defence._
9.Subsequent pleadings . No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than thirty days for presenting the same”._
A perusal of the above extracted provision shows that the defendant cannot as a matter of right insist that he should be permitted to file additional written statement. The Courtss in given case can consider giving permission to file additional written statement. After perusing the application, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for exercising discretion in permitting defendant No.2 to file additional written statement. Hence, the Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
4 of 5
908-wp-10664-2018.odt
impugned order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in memorandum of Appeal as contemplated by Section 105(1) of C.P.C.
[R.G. KETKAR, J.]
5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere and grant permission to the defendant to file an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC.
Whether the petitioner had a prima facie case to set aside the trial court’s order rejecting the application for additional written statement.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kirit Kumar Gangaram Panchal
Yogesh Karsandas Kapadia
R.G. KETKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
