A belated written statement may be accepted where resulting prejudice is compensable by costs.

The petitioner, defendant No. 5(b) in a partition suit instituted in 2014, was brought on record as the legal heir of deceased defendant No. 5 in 2018.

Believing that the original defendant had filed a written statement, the petitioner did not file one; the omission came to his attention when evidence was being recorded.

The trial court rejected his application for permission to file a written statement.

He challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file a written statement despite the delay and his failure to verify whether the deceased defendant had filed one.

2. Whether any prejudice to the other parties from permitting the late filing could be addressed by imposing costs.

The Court considered the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, invoking the trial court’s inherent powers.

It applied the principles that a party’s right to defend should not be denied merely on technical grounds and that prejudice caused by a delayed filing may, where appropriate, be compensated by imposing costs.

No precedent was cited.

Although the petitioner had been on record since 2018 and should have exercised due diligence to check whether a valid defence had been filed, the Court considered the suit’s partition nature and the petitioner’s stated belief that the original defendant had filed a written statement.

It held that the delay—more than seven years—could not be ignored, but concluded that the right to defend should not be denied solely on technical grounds.

Any prejudice to the plaintiffs could be compensated through costs.

It allowed the petitioner’s application under Section 151 CPC and directed the trial court to take his written statement on record upon payment of ₹15,000 in costs to the plaintiffs.

The trial court was requested to dispose of the 2014 suit within one year from the next date of hearing.