HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5916 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Lakshmana Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Musafirkhana in Regular Suit No.197 of 2017 whereby an application filed by the petitioner-defendant for cancelling the written statement filed by her and to give her opportunity to file a fresh written statement, has been rejected. The petitioner had filed Civil Revision No.64 of 2024 against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ FTC-1, Sultanpur and the validity of the revisional order has also been assailed by the petitioner. 3. In the application under Section 151 C.P.C., the petitioner had stated that after receipt of summon of the suit, she engaged an Advocate, executed a vakalatnama and authorized him to inspect the paper book and file a written statement. Upon inspection of the paper book, her counsel came to know that a written statement has Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lakshmana Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ram Dheeraj, Vinod Kumar Singh Vidya Singh .....Petitioner(s) Krishna Kumar Singh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) already been filed and a vakalatnama executed in favour of Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate is available on record whereas the petitioner does not know Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate and she has not knowingly filed any written statement. 4. The plaintiffs- the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to the present petition, filed objections to the aforesaid application stating that the petitioner-defendant has put her signatures on the vakalatnama and her counsel has filed objections and affidavit which too have been signed by the defendant. 5. The trial Court has rejected the application by means of the impugned order dated 08.11.2024 wherein it is recorded that the defendant Vidya Singh was present in the Court. She was asked about the written statement filed by her to which she only repetitively stated that she had only signed on one page and she did not state anything about the signatures on the other pages of the written statement- whether the same were made by her or not. The Court put a question to the defendant regarding the photograph put on the written statement and she quickly responded that she had got the photograph clicked at some shop at Musafirkhana but her counsel repudiated this statement and he stated that the photograph could have been photo-shopped and it might not be a real photograph of the defendant. The trial Court has recorded that considering the demeanor of the defendant Vidya Singh, it was evident that she has totally been tutored to neglect her signatures. She has will fully acknowledged her photograph and she did not respond to finally to any question of the Court regarding her signatures. The Court has held that if such applications are accepted without any evidence in support of the allegations, it will become an easy ground for every party to repudiate the previous filed pleadings or applications alleging fault of the previous counsel. The trial Court has also recorded in the impugned order that the signatures on the vakalatnama and written statement etc. appear to be the same. 6. The revisional Court has perused the impugned order and has A227 No. 5916 of 2025 2 not found any illegality or irregularity in the same and has accordingly dismissed the revision. 7. The happenings which took place in the Court are recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order. The narration regarding the happenings in the Court is presumed to be correct. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not challenged the narration of happenings recorded by the trial Court. The Presiding Officer of the trial Court was the best Judge regarding demeanor of the defendant in the Court. The trial Court has elaborately recorded the conduct of the defendant and her counsel and has come to a reasoned conclusion. Therefore, there appears to be no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 08.11.2024. The Court puts its appreciation on record that the matter could not have been dealt with by the trial Court in a better manner. 9. The petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. October 9, 2025 -Amit K- A227 No. 5916 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench