IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.723 of 2009 LALLU PRASAD SINGH Versus GUPTESHWAR NATH PANDEY & ORS ----------- 2/ 13.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was defendant no. 6 in Title Suit No. 252 of 2005, pending before the Subordinate Judge II, Kaimoor at Bhabua. The petitioner had appeared on 24.4.2008 in the court below, as may appear from order as contained in Annexure 1. The court below had directed the petitioner to file written statement by 28th August, 2008 by order dated 28th July, 2008. On 28th August, 2008 the petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. An objection was taken by the plaintiff that the filing of the written statement was beyond the statutory period and as such, it could not be made part of the record. The learned Judge accordingly passed an order refusing to make the written statement the part of the record. As may appear, the court has itself directed the petitioner to file written statement by 28th August, 2008 which would constructively mean that the court had extended the time for filing written statement to a subsequent date on which date the petitioner filed his written statement. It was not proper for the court below to have refused the written statement to be made the part of the record. I direct the written statement filed by the petitioner to be - 2 - taken on record and proceedings to be proceeded with in accordance with law. The Civil Revision petition is allowed in the above terms. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)