SANTU MISTRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Dhurb Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Ramashish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) THE issue which was before the court below and has been sought to be adjudicated by the impugned order could not have a cut and dry solution. True it is that an additional written statement under normal circumstances cannot be taken on record after the parties have already confined not only their pleadings but issues have also been framed and based on such issues the evidence is also sought to be adduced but then as always it is only an exceptional circumstance which can test the scope of substantive provision. It is for this purpose that Order 8 Rule 9 C.P.C. vests a discretionary power to the court to entertain an additional written statement at any stage. It would be really interesting to note that suit in question came to be filed on 21.8.2002 seeking virtually a relief of permanent injunction against the State and its officials. It must be noted here that in this suit filed on 10.12.2002 Title Suit No.67/2002 the petitioners were not made parties. Since the petitioners had their own interest over the same suit land they came out with a separate suit in the same court being T.S. No. 93/2002 in which they had also impleaded the opposite parties, the plaintiff in T.S. No. 67/2002.

(3.) THE petitioners thereafter in order to protect their own rights had sought intervention in T.S. No. 67/2002 which came to be allowed by the court by an order dated 22.1.2004 and thereafter they had also filed written statement on 21.4.2004 in which in paragraph -6 it was categorically mentioned that for the same relief which is subject matter of T.S. No. 67/2002 the petitioners had filed their own independent suit being T.S. No. 93/2002 and the plaint thereof (T.S. No. 93/2002) was made part and parcel of the written statement in T.S. No. 67/2002.