Setting aside adoption of a written statement for lack of verification does not bar filing a fresh one.

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration and partition against his father (defendant no. 1) and siblings (defendants no. 3-5).

Defendant no. 3 initially adopted the written statement of defendant no. 1 instead of filing a separate one.

On 10/01/2025, the High Court set aside this adoption because the statement lacked proper verification by defendant no. 3 as required under Order 6 Rule 15 of the CPC.

Following the death of defendant no. 1, defendant no. 3 applied under Order 22 Rule 4(2) of the CPC to file a separate written statement as a legal heir; the trial court allowed this on 17/05/2025.

The plaintiff challenged this allowment in M.P. No. 4911/2025, which was dismissed on 13/11/2025, and the plaintiff now seeks a review of that dismissal.

1. Whether the order dated 13/11/2025 contains an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under the Court's jurisdiction.

2. Whether the previous High Court order dated 10/01/2025 operated as res judicata to bar defendant no. 3 from filing a fresh written statement in the capacity of a legal representative.

Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and the standards established by the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, which mandates that a review is maintainable only for discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record.

Order 22 Rule 4(2) of the CPC, which empowers legal representatives of a deceased defendant to assert any defense appropriate to their character as such representative.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any patent error in the impugned order, noting that mere disagreement with a legal conclusion does not constitute a ground for review.

The Court observed that the previous order dated 10/01/2025 only invalidated the adoption of a pleading due to procedural defects and did not expressly debar defendant no. 3 from filing a subsequent statement.

The Court found that since defendant no. 1 had passed away, defendant no. 3 acquired a statutory right under Order 22 Rule 4(2) to file a statement as a legal heir.

The Court emphasized that permitting the pleading ensures adjudication on merits rather than technicalities, thus advancing substantial justice.

The petition was dismissed, confirming that the trial court’s decision to accept the written statement was legally sound and did not violate the principles of res judicata.