MUNNA LAL Vs. CHIRONJILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING a interlocutory order dated 22-12-05 Annexure P-l passed by the court of Add1. District Judge, Sabalgarh in Civil Suit No. 12-B/05 refusing to take on record a written statement filed by the petitioners, petitioners have approached this court.

(2.) RESPONDENTS plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of rs. 4,56,000/- and interest of Rs. 1,24,000/- against one Kedar Nath, father of the present petitioners. Records indicate that after written statement was filed by the original defendant Kedar Nath, he expired and, therefore, petitioners who are sons of late Kedar Nath were brought on record.

(3.) AFTER petitioners were brought on record they again filed a joint written statement Annexure P-5 raising various grounds to indicate that they are not responsible for the liability incurred by their father. Grievance of the petitioners is that the written statement now filed by the petitioners is not being taken on record and the same is being rejected only on the ground that in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Gajraj Vs. Sudha, 1999 (11)MPWN 60, written statement cannot be taken on record. Shri Bharadwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner inviting my attention to a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of J. C. Chatterjee and others Vs. Shri Sri Kishan tandon and another, AIR 1972 SC 2526 so also a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vidyawati Vs. Man Mohan and others, AIR 1995 SC 1653 argued that once a person is impleaded as party as a legal heir of the original plaintiff or defendant the said person is entitled to make a appropriate defence which is appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant or the plaintiff as the case may be. It is, therefore, stated by Shri Bharadwaj that in the present case petitioners herein above having denied the liability in the matter of discharge of the liability of their father and as the law permits them to raise such defence learned court has committed material irregularity in rejecting the written statement without considering the aforesaid legal principle.