IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11618 of 2010 MADRASA ISLAHIA @ MADRASA ISLAMIA, BILAYATI BARI, KHAGRA, P.O. AND P.S. AND DISTT.- KISHANGANJ THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MOFIZUDDIN S/O LATE HAJI ANEES MOHAMMAD R/O BILAYATI BARI, KHAGRA, P.O. & P.S. & DISTT.- KISHANGANJ ………….Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KRISHN KUMAR DEO 3. BAL RAM KUMAR DEO 4. SUSHIL KUMAR DEO 5. SHAMBHU KUMAR DEO SL. NO. 2 to 5 ARE SONS OF LATE BUDHAN LAL DEO R/O MOHALLA- PURANA KHAGRA, BILAYATI BARI, WARD NO. 23(5), P.O., P.S. AND DISTT.- KISHANGANJ 6. SMT. DAROPATI DEVI 7. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI BOTH DAUGHTERS OF LATE BUDHAN LAL DEO R/O MOHALLA- PURANA KHAGRA, BILAYATI BARI, WARD NO. 23(5), P.O., P.S. AND DISTT.- KISHANGANJ ………. Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Najmul Hoda, Advocate. Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.A.-VI For the Respondent nos. 2 to 7 : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate. Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 4. 15-09-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar (Respondent no. 1) as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents nos. 2 to 7. 2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging order dated 29.01.2009 (Annexure-3) by which Sub- ordinate Judge-I, Kishanganj rejected the written statement of defendant-petitioner and also for quashing order dated 18.06.2010 (Annexure-5) by which Sub-ordinate Judge-II, Kishanganj rejected the review petition filed by defendant-petitioner in T.S. No. 34 of 2005. 2 3. The aforesaid suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land and also for correction of the entries in the Municipal Survey Khatiyan, although the processes for issuance of notices to the defendants were filed on 30.05.2007, but the date of service of notices upon defendant-petitioner has not been disclosed. However, admittedly, defendant-petitioner appeared in suit on 04.02.2008, but filed his written statement only on 05.07.2008 which was accepted by the trial court in due course. However, on 21.10.2008 plaintiff filed a petition for rejection of the written statement filed by defendant-petitioner on the ground of delay and after hearing both the sides in the said matter, the trial court rejected the written statement vide its order dated 29.01.2009. The said order has not been challenged by defendant-petitioner before any higher court. 4. It transpires that after about 16 months, a petition was filed by defendant-petitioner for review of the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2009 claiming that earlier order was passed in absence of defendant -petitioner as his conducting lawyer had left making pairvi from 14.01.2009 in the said case. The said review petition has been rejected by the court below by the impugned order dated 18.06.2010. 5. From the submissions of the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that admittedly written statement was filed beyond the period of 90 days even from the date of the appearance of defendant in the title suit. Hence, the bar of the 3 provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was clearly there. Furthermore no application had been filed by the defendant giving any reason for such inordinate delay as only in extreme exigency the court had authority to extend the period as provided by the order of this court passed in the case of Smt. Sunita Devi & Ors. Vs. Abdhesh Kumar Sinha @ Kamleshwari Pd. Sinha & Ors. reported in 2005(2) PLJR 482 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in a case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors. reported in 2005(3) PLJR (SC) 241. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the written statement filed by defendant-petitioner. 6. So far as the review petition (Annexure-4) is concerned, admittedly it had been filed after much more than one year of the order sought to be reviewed. Furthermore, neither any application for condoning the delay had been filed nor any reason had been shown in the said review petition to condone the delay in filing of the review petition for which the statutory time is only 30 days under the provisions of the Limitation Act. 7. From perusal of the entire material on record, it is quite apparent that no case in accordance with law is made out either for acceptance of the written statement or for allowing the review petition filed by the defendant-petitioner. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J)