- (1.)THE petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amreli in Special Civil Suit No. 59 of 2004 below application Ex. 18 disallowing the petitioner to present the written statement in the suit.
(2.)IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent herein filed Special Civil Suit No. 59 of 2004 for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell dated 06.09.2001. The petitioner on account of certain circumstances beyond his control could not file the written statements within the time granted by the trial court and the right to file statement came to be closed on 19.07.2005. The petitioner however could file his written statement on 26.08.2008 along with application at Ex. 18 to allow the petitioner to submit the written statement. The said application came to be rejected by the trial court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is preferred.
Mr. Kanabar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the facts stated in the application Ex. 18, more particularly, para 8 as to why there was a delay of almost three years in filing the written statement are of the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner and are required to be accepted. Ex. 21 which is the reply of the respondent to the aforesaid application whereby the respondent is unable to point out what prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the trial court has closed the right to file written statement on 19.07.2005 and from the application no valid reason for delay can be seen. Mr. Bhatt has submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted in his application that he has sold out the disputed property after filing of the present suit which clearly shows the malafide intention of the petitioner.

(3.)THIS court has heard learned advocates for both the sides and perused the papers on record. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner and from the record it seems that the petitioner is very well conversant with the court proceedings and has deliberately delayed the filing of written statement. The right to file written statement was closed by the trial court on 19.07.2005 and since then neither the learned advocate for the petitioner nor the petitioner has taken any serious care to submit the application to open their right to file the written statement; but after lapse of long period learned advocate for the petitioner submitted application to allow filing of written statement in the suit. 5.1 It is required to be noted that the petitioner himself has admitted that he had sold the disputed property after filing the present suit. Further, the petitioner has made an endeavour to get support of a Division Bench judgement dated 29.09.2009 of this court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 792 of 2008 in Special Civil Application No. 6924 of 2007 with Civil Application No. 9230 of 2008 wherein on the facts of the said case as laid down in para 7, the Division Bench on facts has allowed the written statement to be taken on record. The said judgement shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Even otherwise, this court is of the view that allowing the written statement to be taken on record after the right to file is closed is the discretion of the trial court and if this court interferes in each and every such case, the very object of filing written statement within stipulated time shall be frustrated. If a court desires to wipe out the arrears, some demarcation is required to be made and this is a fit case where the trial court has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction. This petition is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.