LAWS(BOM)-1982-9-37

VINAYAK NILKANT KALE Vs. SHANTABAI DATTATRAYA DESHPANDEAND ANOTHER

Decided On September 29, 1982
VINAYAK NILKANT KALE Appellant
V/S
SHANTABAI DATTATRAYA DESHPANDE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A somewhat interesting question arises in this revision application. After the order was passed against the defendants that the suit against them should proceed ex parte because no written statement was filed on due date, a document purporting to be the written statement of the defendants, but signed only by the Advocate for the defendants, was sought to be filed in the Court, together with the application for taking the same on record and for setting aside the previous order directing the suit to proceed ex parte. That written statement statement was not taken on record. In the technical sense, the application was rejected and an ex parte decree was passed against the defendants.

(2.) In appeal, the ex parte decree had been set aside and the defendants were directed to file their written statement in the trial Court on 7-12-1281. But on that day, the defendants sought to file not the same previous document, but a different document signed by the defendants as well as their Advocate, as their written statement. The plaintiff objected to the said new written statement being taken on record, and insisted that the defendants should be allowed, on principle, to file only the earlier document signed by their Advocate, as their real written statement and no another new document as their written statement as such. These objections have been upheld by the trial Court and the order in that behalf is the subject matter of this revision application. These are in brief, the facts of the case and the question arises as to whether there is any bar against the defendants from filing, what the plaintiff describes as their real written statement.

(3.) I will now state the facts in some details. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises. His contention is that the suit premises were given to the defendants by him on leave and license. Civil Suit No. 10 of 1980 was filed by him for possession of the suit premises after allegedly revoking the said licence.