Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On 20th March, 2010, an application bearing OMP No.657 of 2009, filed by the plaintiff, was allowed for amendment of the plaint and amended plaint was taken on record, wherein basic nature and prayer of the suit along with its contention remained the same. Amended written statement to amended plaint was filed on 19th June, 2010. It was filed through Mr. Prithvi Raj, holder of 'General Power ...5...

of Attorney' on behalf of defendant No.1, wherein also the stand of defendant No.1 remained the same.

13. In reply to the application by the contesting defendants it is pointed out that though subsequent written statement to the amended plaint, filed on 19th June, 2010, was signed by Prithvi Raj on behalf of defendant No.1 being his general power of attorney however in this subsequent written statement filed through Prithvi Raj, the stand taken by defendant No.1 in his earlier written statement filed in 2005 was reiterated alongwith addition of reply on the same time to additional amended portion of the subsequent plaint. Now, fresh written statement, proposed to be filed on behalf of defendant No.1 is entirely ...12...

17. In rejoinder as well as in sur-rejoinder certain facts have been mentioned, raising new issues, which are not part of the pleadings of the application as well as reply and also not relevant for adjudication of the issue involved in present applications. Therefore, those averments of the applicants and non-applicants alongwith documents related thereto are not being discussed herein.

18. Issue involved in these applications is whether it is permissible to defendant No.1 or his legal representatives to file fresh written statement taking a converse stand to the pleadings to the written statement(s) filed earlier to the original plaint as well as amended plaint.

and also that GPA, so produced on record lateron, was only valid for a part of the suit land and therefore, Prithvi Raj GPA was not holding power of attorney authorising him to act on behalf of the defendant including filing of written statement qua the entire suit land and thus for want of a valid GPA to deal with the entire suit land, amended written statement, on the basis of the said GPA, cannot be considered a written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.1 and further that after amendment of the plaint, earlier written statement filed under the signatures of defendant No.1, which was also not filed by defendant No.1 but was a procured one, has lost its significance as it is no more part of the record after allowing the amendment of the plaint and granting permission to file the fresh written statement to the amended plaint, and therefore, there is no valid and legal written statement on record filed on behalf of defendant No.1, as such, the objections of contesting non- applicants/defendants, alleging the filing of two written statements with contradictory stand, is not sustainable.