12 February 2025 Education >> Miscellaneous  

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by defendants in a long-standing legal battle concerning the Prabhakar Desai International School (PDIS) in Dombivali. The case revolves around a disputed agreement for the construction and operation of the school between a trust (the plaintiff) and another charitable trust (the defendant).

The dispute originated in 2012 with an agreement between the two trusts. The plaintiff terminated the agreement in 2015, alleging breach of contract, and subsequently filed a suit seeking significant damages and the handover of the school's affairs.

The defendants failed to file a written statement within the stipulated time, leading to a "no written statement" order against them. Despite several attempts to overturn this order, including appeals to the High Court and the Supreme Court, the defendants were unsuccessful.

The current petition stemmed from the defendants' application to have a previously tendered written statement (filed in 2019) considered as their response to the amended plaint. The plaintiff had amended their plaint in 2019, and the defendants argued they were entitled to file an additional written statement addressing the amendments, regardless of the previous "no written statement" order.

The defendants' counsel argued that the right to file an additional written statement is separate from the right to file the initial written statement and is triggered by the amendment of the plaint. They further contended that the usual time restrictions for filing a written statement do not apply to additional written statements responding to amendments. They cited several precedents in support of their arguments, including a Supreme Court ruling in Gurdial Singh and Others vs. Raj Kumar Aneja and Ors.

The plaintiff's counsel, however, argued that the defendants' application was a veiled attempt to resurrect a written statement that had already been rejected by the courts. They pointed out that the written statement tendered in 2019 was a composite document addressing both the original and amended plaints, and that the courts had specifically declined to take it on record. They emphasized the long delay and lack of diligence on the part of the defendants.

The High Court upheld the rejection of the defendants' application. The court acknowledged the right to file an additional written statement in response to an amended plaint but emphasized that such a statement must be confined to the new matters introduced by the amendment. Critically, the court found that the written statement tendered by the defendants had never formally become part of the court record, due to the previous rejection of their applications. The Court further noted that the tendered written statement was a composite document addressing both the original and amended plaints. The court also highlighted the significant time lapse since the plaint was amended. The court concluded that allowing the defendants to now use that document, or parts of it, would effectively nullify previous court orders.

The High Court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules and timelines in legal proceedings. It also clarifies the scope and limitations of the right to file additional pleadings in response to amendments. The dismissal of the writ petition effectively closes another chapter in this protracted legal dispute, leaving the core issues of the case to be decided based on the existing pleadings and evidence.