IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1429 of 2008 VIKASH @ VIKAS KUMAR Versus SHANKAR SAO ----------- 2 3/9/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order granting permission to the defendant-tenant to contest the suit under section 14 of the B.B.C.Act, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. This Court would find that the court below has recorded cogent reasons for giving such opportunity to the defendant by way of leave to contest the suit seeking eviction. Such reasons being based on factual premises which have not been suggested an error of records, are well within the parameters of section 14 of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would contend that once affidavit of the petitioner, being plaintiff had already been filed on 6.2.2008, the Court thereafter had become functus officio in allowing such prayer of the defendant in as much as the defendant had appeared on 11.1.2008 and had committed a default of 2 one day in between 11.1.2008 to 6.2.2008 in filing such affidavit seeking leave to contest the suit. Counsel for the petitioner in this context has heavily relied on the observations of this Court in the judgment of the case of ‘Sachchidanand Shukla Vs. Sudha Sinha & Ors’, reported in 1998 (1) P.L.J.R. 126. In the opinion of this Court reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, is wholly misplaced. What has been laid down as law in the case of Sachchidanand Shukla (Supra) is that there should not be unreasonable delay in filing of the affidavit. His Lordships also made it clear that what would be unreasonable delay, will depend on facts of each case. That being so, when this Court finds that the defendant-tenant had appeared on 11.1.2008 for contesting the suit and the Court had granted time till 24th January, 2008, on which date neither he appeared nor he had filed affidavit, the application seeking leave seeking 3 extension of time till the next day i.e, 6.2.2008 to enable the defendant to file his affidavit on the next date, cannot be said to be unreasonable delay specially when it is found that the defendant had eventually filed his affidavit seeking leave to contest the suit on the next date, i.e, 18.2.2008. In that view of the matter, plea of the petitioner that there was unreasonable delay and the Court below ought to have not allowed leave in favour of the defendant, is absolutely unsustainable. Accordingly, this civil revision application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar