1991 (8) TMI 342 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the legal representatives of a deceased defendant can file an additional written statement without seeking leave of the court?
2. Whether Order 8 Rule 9 controls Order 22 Rule 4 in terms of filing a defense as a legal representative?
3. What is the legal position regarding the filing of additional written statements by legal representatives of a deceased defendant?

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether legal representatives of a deceased defendant can file an additional written statement without seeking leave of the court. The plaintiff's counsel objected to the legal representatives filing a written statement without court permission, citing Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, the defendants' counsel argued that Order 22 Rule 4 allows legal representatives to raise a defense without needing prior court permission.

The court analyzed the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 and Order 22 Rule 4. Order 8 Rule 9 mandates seeking court permission for filing additional pleadings, while Order 22 Rule 4 allows legal representatives to make any defense appropriate to their character without such permission. The court emphasized that Order 8 Rule 9 pertains to pleading rules, requiring parties to justify the need for additional pleadings. In contrast, Order 22 Rule 4 grants legal representatives the right to raise defenses without prior court approval.

The court highlighted that Order 8 Rule 9 does not control Order 22 Rule 4. While Order 8 Rule 9 involves court discretion in permitting additional pleadings, Order 22 Rule 4 empowers legal representatives to raise defenses as per their character without such discretion. The court referenced a Calcutta High Court judgment, which emphasized granting leave for additional pleadings, but the court differentiated the applicability of Order 8 Rule 9 in the present case.

Ultimately, the court held that the legal representatives' written statement should be considered valid as their defense was appropriate to their character. Even if Order 8 Rule 9 were to apply, the court granted leave considering the nature of the defense raised and the absence of objections from the plaintiff's side. The court concluded by ordering the case accordingly, recognizing the legal representatives' right to raise defenses without hindrance.