C.M.P. challenging the acceptance of a written statement by Defendant no.5. Court noted delay in filing and unauthorized signatory but declined interference, enhancing costs.
Cost enhanced to Rs.2500/-; records remanded.
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.
C.M.P. No.1610 of 2016
2.11.2016 This petition challenges the order dated 16.2.2016 passed by the learned Secon
d Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Cuttack in C.S.No.286 of 2011. By the said order, the
learned trial court accepted the written statement filed by defendant no.5.
Mr.Barik, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners as
plaintiffs instituted the suit for partition and other consequential reliefs impleading the o
pposite parties as defendants. Defendant no.5 is a company. Pursuant to issuance of summons, w
ritten statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.5, but then subsequently an application o
n behalf of the company was made. The earlier written statement filed by defendant no.5 was ig
nored and the subsequent written statement filed by company was accepted.
Per contra, Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 submits, tha
t Prasant Kumar Nayak, a former employee of the company filed written statement supporting the
stand of the plaintiffs. Much prior to filing of the written statement, he was not in service
nor authorized by the company. When this fact was brought to the notice of defendant no.5, an
application under Section 151 of C.P.C. was filed to ignore the said written statement and ac
cept another fresh one. The learned trial court allowed the same.
One aspect cannot be brushed aside. Long after appearance of defendant no.5, t
he written statement was filed.
In view of the same, though this Court has not interfered with impugned order,
but enhance the cost to Rs.2500/- (Two Thousand Five Hundred). The cost shall be by Mr.Barik,
learned counsel for the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today.
The petition is disposed of.
Registry is directed to send back the records in C.S.No.286 of 2011 to the lea
rned trial court immediately.
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the impugned order where the trial court accepted a written statement filed by a company after appearance.
Whether a written statement filed by an unauthorized former employee should be accepted or ignored as a company representative.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners
Defendant no.5
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court