IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
C.R. No.374 of 2006
SHAKIL AHMAD
Versus
SAIDA KHATOON & ORS
-----------
5 4.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner, defendant in the suit,
is aggrieved by an order dated 10.1.2006
whereby and whereunder his prayer for filing of
a written statement came to be rejected on the
ground that he had no adverse interest to the
plaintiff and that such an effort to file written
statement was wholly belated.
Counsel for the petitioner with
reference to the peculiar facts of this case would
contend that though it is true that the suit was
filed in the year 1990 but a compromise was
sought to be effected in the year 1991 and thus
initially, the defendant/petitioner was not even
required to file a written statement but as
certain development and events had taken place
subsequently due to which not only the
proposed compromise could not be effected but
even defendant no.7 had to be transposed as a
plaintiff and there was no written statement
even on behalf of the defendant no.7, it was
found necessary by the petitioner to make such
2
prayer for filing written statement on his behalf
who is the defendant no.1 to the suit.
On the other hand, Counsel for the
opposite party, the contesting defendant 2
submits that the whole purpose of the petitioner
of filing a written statement by the
defendant/petitioner is only to delay the
disposal of the suit inasmuch as the
compromise effected between him and the
transposed plaintiff as well as the original
plaintiff is an admitted fact and in fact the
plaintiff and the petitioner defendant no.1 are
sailing in the same boat and therefore, no
prejudice would be caused to the
defendant/petitioner if he is not allowed, now to
file written statement at such a belated stage i.e.
after eighteen years of filing of the suit.
In reply to the aforementioned
submissions, the Counsel for the petitioner
defendant no.1 has submitted that under the
changed scenario when the compromise could
not be effected due to the resistance of the
contesting defendant no.2, the defendant no.1
should be shut out from explaining his stand by
filing his written statement and that he is
3
prepared to compensate the defendant no.2 for
the delay and inconvenience caused as held by
the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Vs.
Nanhku reported in AIR 2005 SC 2441.
Having taken into consideration, the
peculiar facts of this case and the different
stages under which the litigation in the suit has
undergone wherein at one stage, it was sought
to be even compromised between the parties
and in fact such compromise had filed, this
Court in the interest of justice would allow the
petitioner to file his written statement in
capacity of the defendant no.1 to the suit
specially when there are two sets of defendants
contesting the suit and there is no written
statement on behalf of one of such sets
represented by the petitioner, the defendant
no.1. In that view of the matter, this Court
would set aside the order of the Court below and
direct that the written statement of the
defendant no.1 be taken on record if filed within
a period of one month from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order on a
payment of a cost of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty
thousands) is paid by the defendant no.1 to the
4
contesting defendant no.2 to compensate the
loss for delay and inconvenience caused to him
for a period of nearly seventeen years from the
date of filing of his written statement.
Accordingly, this civil revision
application is disposed of.
Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)