IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8571 of 2004 SITARAM CHOUBEY Versus RASHEED KHAN & ANR ----------- CWJC No.10471 of 2004 PURSOTTAM KUMAR CHOUBEY Versus RASHEED KHAN & ANR ----------- 12. 16.05.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondent no. 1 in both applications. CWJC No. 8571 of 2004 assails the order dated 11.6.2004 passed by the Sub Judge VIII Patna rejecting the application of the petitioner therein under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as party defendant. CWJC No. 10471 of 2004 has been filed assailing the order dated 11.6.2004 debarring the petitioner therein from filing his written statement. The respondent no. 1 filed a suit for eviction. The petitioner in CWJC No. 10471 of 2004 is a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the tenant. The petitioner in CWJC No. 8571 of 2004 is the father of the Power of Attorney holder. The contention of respondent no. 1 in CWJC No. 8571 of 2004 is that he has no locus while it is contention of the petitioner that in fact he was the one who was looking after entire business. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 without conceding lack of locus standi on part of the petitioner in CWJC No. 8571 of 2004 submits that he is more interested in an early disposal of the eviction suit. For the same reason on the persuasion of the Court he is agreeable to grant of further time to the petitioner in CWJC No. 10471 of 2004 to file his written statement but subject to payment of cost. Both the writ applications are allowed. The order dated 26.5.2004 in CWJC No. 8571 of 2004 is accordingly set aside. It shall however be open for the respondent no. 1 to raise all his objections in this regard in the suit itself. The impugned order dated 11.6.2004 in CWJC No. 10471 of 2004 debarring filing of written statement is also set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- to be paid to the respondent no. 1 through his counsel in the court below within a period of two weeks and receipt filed in the court below. The eviction suit has remained pending since 2001. The Court therefore directs that the eviction suit itself be proceeded with expeditiously without grant of unnecessary adjournment to either party and to conclude the same preferably within a period of one year. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)