VANEET KUMAR GANDOTRA Vs. VINOD GANDOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises a very interesting question for determination :

(2.) PARTIES are closely related to each other. Respondents 1 and 2 are the brothers and petitioner is the son of respondent No.2. The controversy centers round a relinquishment deed dated 18 -7 -1980 purported to have been executed by respondents No. 2 in favour of respondent No.1 relinquishing a portion of House No. 1771 situated in Mohalla Ragunath pure, Jammu. The petitioner, son of respondent No.2, filed a suit in the trial Court seeking declaration that this deed was void and in operative. While respondent No.1 filed his written statement in the suit, respondent No.2 was set exparte parte. It, however, appears that he was later allowed to file his written statement in which he admitted the claim of plaintiff -petitioner and made some supporting averments. This prompted respondent No.1 to file an application before the trial Court seeking leave for filing the additional written statement to set up his defence against the stand taken by respondentNo. 2. This application was allowed by the trial Court by order dated 7 -4 -1994 against which this revision petition is directed.

(3.) MR . Wazir, learned counsel for the petitioner -plaintiff assailed the order impugned on the plea that the trial Court had no competence to permit an additional written statement filed by respondent No.1 against the written statement filed by respondent No.2. According to him, there could not be a written statement against a written statement as such a concept was not countenanced by the provisions of order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. He contended that the written statement could be filed only as against the plaint of the plaintiff and not against the written statement of the defendant. On merits, he submitted that the trial Court had passed an unreasoned order allowing respondent No. 1 to file his written statement without referring to the circumstances which wanted the Court to grant the leave.