SWADHINLATA DAS Vs. LINGARAJ SWAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), 2nd Court, Cuttack in C.S. No.178 of 2007, whereby and whereunder learned trial court rejected the application of the defendant no.7 to grant liberty to file written statement.

(2.) The opposite party no.1 along with the predecessors-ininterest of opposite party nos.2 and 3 instituted the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant nos.1, 7 to 9 have no semblance right, title and interest over the same and declaration that the RSD dated 28.11.1986 executed by Prabhat Kumar Mohapatra in favour of defendant nos.1, 7 to 8 as well the order dated 30.8.1989 passed in Mutation Case No.96 of 1989 are illegal, invalid and void impleading the petitioner and opposite party nos.4 to 6 as defendants. The petitioner is the defendant no.7.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant nos.1, 8 and 9 entered appearance and filed their respective written statements denying the assertions made in the plaint. Issues were framed. Evidence from the side of the plaintiffs was closed. After closure of evidence, defendant no.1 died. The plaintiffs filed an application to delete the name of defendant no.1 since other legal heirs, namely, wife and son, defendant nos.7 and 8 are already on record. The defendant no.7 filed objection to the said petition. She had also filed a petition to recall the order dated 09.02.1996 setting her exparte and to allow her to file written statement. The plaintiffs filed objection to the said petition. Learned trial court deleted the name of the defendant no.1 from the cause title of the plaint. With regard to the petition filed by the defendant no.7, it held that though the defendant no.7 was set exparte on 09.02.1996, despite the said order she appeared through her counsel and filed written statement. The same was accepted by the court without any objection. Her counsel has also taken steps on her behalf on each date. In view of the subsequent events, the order setting her exparte no more stands. It further held that the evidence of the plaintiffs is closed and as such granting liberty to the defendant no.7 to file written statement does not arise. Held so, learned trial court rejected the application.