[2025:RJ-JP:252] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10599/2024 Shri Satyanarayan S/o Late Shri Radhaballabh Jhalani, Aged About 83 Years, R/o 304, Vinayak Apartment, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Kailash Narayan Jhalani S/o Late Shri Radhaballabh Jhalani, Aged About 82 Years, R/o 304, Vinayak Apartment, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. 2. Shri Jagdish Narayan Jhalani (Deceased), S/o Late Shri Radhaballabh Jhalani 2/1. Smt. Ramjanki W/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Jhalani, (Deceased) 2/2. Shri Anand Bihari Jhalani, S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Jhalani 2/3. Shri Vipin Bihari Jhalani S/o Shri Jagdish Narayan Jhalani, All Are Resident Of B-49, Ganesh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Smt. Gopali Devi W/o Shri Nandkishore Katta, Aged About 89 Years, R/o Jat Ke Kunwe Ka Rasta, Chandpole, Jaipur. 4. Chand Jhalani S/o Late Shri Durgaprasad Ji Jhalani, Aged About 69 Years, R/o 10, Sindhu Marine Drive, Mumbai. 5. Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Shri Raman Khandelwal (Deceased), R/o Transport Nagar, Lashkar Gwalior, Opposite High Court Building. 5/1. Sanjay Khandelwal S/o Shri Raman Khandelwal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 202, Ramkamal Heights, Alkapuri, City Centre, Gwalior (Mp). 5/2. Nitin Khandelwal S/o Shri Raman Khandelwal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 439A, Behind The Greater Brijwasi, Jmb Sweets, Goyal Nagar, Indore (Mp) 6. Shri Ashok S/o Late Shri Durgaprasad Ji, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 10, Kintu Marine Drive, Mumbai. 7. Shri Ramesh S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad Ji, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 10, Sindhu Mari Drive, Mumbai. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:252] (2 of 3) [CW-10599/2024] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Bajpai, Senior Counsel with Mr. Nitesh Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Senior Counsel with Mr. Yashwardhan Tolani, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 03/01/2025 This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.3 (for short 'the defendant') against the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-First in Civil Suit No.09/2007, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC and returned the written statement and counter claim filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for partition of Joint Hindu Family Property against the defendants in which summon was never served upon the defendant. Plaintiff assured the defendant that he will watch his interest and shall get engaged a lawyer for him. So, he had signed vakalatnama on the askance of the plaintiff but Advocate appointed by the plaintiff had not contested his case in right perspective. Resultantly, his right to file written statement was closed on 01.07.2008. The said facts came to his knowledge in the year 2022. Immediately thereafter, he filed an application before the trial court for taking written statement on record but trial court vide order dated 07.03.2024 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, in the interest of justice, the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the trial [2025:RJ-JP:252] (3 of 3) [CW-10599/2024] court be set aside and written statement with counter claim filed by the defendant be taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that suit was filed in the year 2007. Defendant was very well represented by his Advocate and he had not filed written statement within the stipulated period. Resultantly, trial court closed his opportunity to file written statement on 01.07.2008. The said order was not challenged by the defendant. Defendant had filed an application after a lapse of 15 years. So, trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, present petition be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the respondent(s). It is an admitted position that in the present suit, defendant was represented by his Advocate, who appeared on his behalf. Since then, he had not filed the written statement. Resultantly, trial court had closed the opportunity to file the written statement on 01.07.2008. The said order was never challenged by the defendant. The present application was filed by the defendant after a lapse of 15 years. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /11