Petitioners challenged the trial court's dismissal of their applications seeking to file a written statement to an amended plaint. The High Court held they were already granted liberty to file it, blamed their previous counsel without proof, and sought to delay trial at defence-evidence stage. The petition was dismissed.
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.
$~53
YATENDER SHARMA AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Aakar Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
INDU SHARMA THROUGH SPA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
ORDER (Oral)
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.
CM(M) 1040/2026
Page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:0 7.05.2026 11:21:54
permitted to file the written statement to the amended plaint, grave prejudice would be caused to the defence of the petitioners, and it is also necessary for the proper adjudication of the case.
“Perusal of the record reveals that defendant no. 1 had filed his written statement within the statutory period after being served in the present case. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of plaint and application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment of defendant no. 2 along with amended plaint. Copy of the said applications was supplied to both the defendants on 10.01.2024. Both the defendants had given their no objections to the aforesaid applications and accordingly, the said applications were allowed and amended plaint already filed by plaintiff was taken on record. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 on the same date. However, the defendants were also given liberty to file written statement to the amended plaint. Despite granting liberty, the same was not availed by defendants. The defendants were well aware of the averments made in the amended plaint. The entire plaintiff evidence has already been led now and the matter is at the stage of defence evidence. Defendants cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna and gaps in their case at this stage by completely changing the nature of their defence. The applications if allowed would cause great prejudice to the plaintiff. Both the defendants were represented by different Counsels earlier and now as well. It is highly unlikely that both the previously appointed Counsels deliberately did not file the WS to the amended plaint. Further, the defendants have not filed on record any complaint made against their earlier Counsel for any such mis-conduct.
In view of the above, both the applications stand
CM(M) 1040/2026
Page 2 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:0 7.05.2026 11:21:54
dismissed and disposed off accordingly.”
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J
MAY 06, 2026/ v/ isk
CM(M) 1040/2026
Page 3 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MANISHA RAJPUT Signing Da te:0 7.05.2026 11:21:54
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly refused permission to file a written statement to the amended plaint at the stage of defence evidence.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Yatender Sharma and Anr
Indu Sharma through SPA
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
