SAMEERMAL RUNWAL Vs. PRAKASHCHANDRA KOTHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 15-4-2009 passed by ADJ, Jaora, District Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 24-A/2007 whereby the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Section 151 of CPC was allowed with a liberty to respondent No. 2 to file a fresh written statement, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner and rest of the respondents. In the said suit a joint written statement was filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2, wherein the allegations made in the plaint were denied. Later on an application was filed by the respondent No. 2, wherein it was alleged that signatures have wrongly been obtained from the respondent No. 2 in the written statement jointly submitted by petitioner and respondent No. 2. It was alleged that fraud was played over the respondent No. 2. It was prayed that respondent No. 2 be permitted to withdraw the written statement with liberty to file a fresh written statement. The application was opposed by the petitioner. After hearing the parties learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. M.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that as per law there cannot be two contradictory written statements. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court cannot be allowed to sustain. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court be set aside.