IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.1460 OF 2011 KAMENDRA MOHAN, VILLAGE TISIAUTA POLICE STATION TISIAUTA DISTRICT VAISHALI AT PRESENT MOHALLA KILA TOWN POLICE STATION HAJIPUR VERSUS 1. MOST.INDU DEVI 2. SMT ARUNA DEVI BOTH DAUGHTER OF LATE CHOUDHARY MADAN MOHAN PRASAD SINGH 3. DHIRENDRA MOHAN SINGH 4. PRAMENDRA MOHAN, MOHALLA KILA TOWN POLICE STATION HAJIPUR 5. SATENDRA MOHAN SINGH 6. JITENDRA MOHAN SINGH 7. KAUSHALENDRA MOHAN 8. HITENDRA MOHAN 9. BRAJENDRA KUMAR 10. RABINDRA KUMAR, VILLAGE TISIAUTA POLICE STATION TISIAUTA DISTRICT VAISHALI 11. RAM BILASH RAI @ RAM BILASH SINGH 12. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH 13. BINOD KUMAR SINGH 14. AMOD KUMAR SINGH 15. MANJU DEVI 16. POONAM DEVI 17. SMT TARAMUNI DEVI, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAHANGIRPUR PRITHI POLICE STATION RAGHOPUR, POST OFFICE JAFARABAD, DISTRICT VAISHALI. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA UNDER KILA SIDHI GHAT ROAD HAJIPUR TOWN. ---------------------------------- 2 05.08.2011. The plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 22.9.2010, passed by the learned Sub-judge IV, Hajipur, Vaishali in Title suit no. 80 of 1992, whereby he has rejected the petition filed by defendant no.3 in Title suit no. 80 of 1992 and imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by both the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 in total. The plaintiff filed Title suit no. 80 0f 1992 for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant 1st set in favour of 2 defendant 4th set is fabricated and collusive document and would not transfer any title. It appears that defendant no.3 on 4.12.2010 filed a petition to allow him to file written statement on 7.7.2010. The trial court has rejected the aforesaid petition for allowing him to file written statement. The trial court has further observed that the plaintiff was instrumental in getting the aforesaid petition filed by him. The plaintiff submits that it was defendant no.3 who had filed a petition to allow written statement. He submits that the trial court has not assigned any reason as to how he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was behind filing of the aforesaid suit. Thus the petitioner submits that part of the order by which he has also been directed to pay Rs. 5000/- may be set aside. I find from the impugned order that the trial court rejected the petition of defendant no.3 on the ground that after long lapse of 18 years, he filed the petition for filing written statement. Defendant no.3 is not the petitioner in this case. As such, I would not go into the aspect by which the trial court has directed defendant no.3 to contribute towards deposit of Rs. 5000/. The part of the order of the trial court directing the petitioner to contribute towards 3 deposit of Rs. 5000/- is set aside. In other words, as per the order, now only defendant no.3 would be required to deposit half of Rs.5000/- and not the petitioner. It appears that the suit is of the year 1992. The petitioner must adduce his evidence within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial court would not grant unnecessary adjournments and would proceed expeditiously with the suit. The writ petition is thus disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)