JIWAN SINGH Vs. SAROJ BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order under challenge in this petition has been passed on 13.12.2016 in an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC in case No. 107/09 by learned Junior Civil Judge, Court No. I, Una.

(2.) What could this Court gather from the perusal of the record and the submissions made on both sides, in a nut shell is that the petitioner-defendant did not engage Shri A.K. Saini, Advocate to defend him in the suit which was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration and also permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner-defendant. The written statement to the suit filed through Shri A.K. Saini, Advocate, on the face of it demonstrate that the entire plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint has been admitted as correct. According to the petitioner-defendant the written statement has not been filed by him. Though he admit his signature thereon, however, it is clarified that the same were obtained on blank papers for the purpose of compromising the dispute. It seems to be so because the signature of the petitioner-defendant are not above the typed word "defendant" but below it. It seems to have done for adjustment of the space on the paper used for typing out the written statement which was got signed from the defendant when blank. The petitioner-defendant, no doubt, has filed the fresh written statement and the counter claim also through Shri P.C. Sharma, Advocate, however, Learned trial Court vide order passed on 11.2.2014 has dismissed the application filed with a prayer to take off the record the written statement filed earlier by Shri A.K. Saini, Advocate. No doubt, the petitioner has not assailed that order any further and may be due to learned trial Court has initially framed the issues in the suit on 22.11.2012 on taking into consideration the fresh written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant through Shri P.C. Sharma, Advocate. In view of the fresh written statement was not on record of the learned trial Court, issues based on the same could have not been framed. Therefore, the entire proceedings from that stage in the suit stood vitiated.

(3.) True it is that the issues so framed were ordered to be struck off by learned trial Court vide order dated 14.2.2017 passed in an application filed for the purpose by the respondentplaintiff during the pendency of the application for amendment in the written statement filed by Shri A.K. Saini Advocate. However, in a situation when in the opinion of this Court, the entire proceedings from the stage of framing issues on 22.11.2012 stood vitiated, there is no need to elaborate various stages in the suit after that stage including dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner-defendant for seeking permission to take off from the record the written statement filed through Shri A.K. Saini, Advocate nor the order passed in the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for seeking modification or alteration of issues as the issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings particularly the written statement which was not on record. There is also no need to discuss the question of desirability of filing an application for seeking amendment in the written statement dismissed vide order under challenge in this petition and suffice would it to say that quashing of proceedings in the suit from the stage of framing issues on 22.11.2012 on the basis of the pleadings which were not on record would serve the ends of justice.