IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.116 of 2008 Binay Choudhary @ Binay Kumar Choudhary son of Late Aghori Choudhary, resident of Mohlla Nadiatola, Kahalgaon, P.S. & P.O. Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur. ….Defendant-Applicant-Appellant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Ravi Kant Prasad son of Late Hari Prasad Sah 2. Uma Nayak daughter of Late Hari Prasad Sah 3. Dr. Mira Rani Sah daughter of Late Hari Prasad Sah 4. Shri Krishna Kant Prasad son of Late Hari Prasad Sah All residents of Mohalla Sujaganj, Anand Chikitsalaya Road, P.O. Bhagalpur City, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur. …Plaintiffs-Opposite parties-Respondents-Opposite parties. For the petitioner : Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 06.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant- applicant-appellant-petitioner challenging order dated 19.12.2007 by which learned District Judge, Bhagalpur dismissed Miscellaneous Appeal No.56 of 2002 with cost and affirmed order dated 05.10.2002 by which learned Munsif-I, Bhagalpur dismissed Miscellaneous Case No.08 of 1999, which was filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 13.11.1998 passed by the trial court in Eviction Suit No.01 of 1994. 3. The said suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties-respondents-opposite parties for eviction of the defendant- petitioner with respect to the suit premises which was a shop containing ‘Aata Chakki Mill”. However, when in spite of notices the defendant did not appear in the suit, the suit was fixed for ex- 2 parte hearing vide order dated 05.02.1996 against the defendant- petitioner, whereafter the defendant appeared on 08.04.1996 and on his prayer the order for ex-parte hearing was recalled. 4. Thereafter the defendant-petitioner filed an application dated 08.05.1996 for grant of time for filing written statement, but in spite of lapse of several months, written statement was not filed. It transpires that on 01.08.1996 plaintiffs- respondents also served a copy of the plaint on the defendant- petitioner and filed the receipt in court, whereafter the defendant- petitioner was again directed to file his written statement by 23.08.1996, which was again enhanced on 19.11.1996 so that the defendant may file his written statement on 19.12.1996, whereafter the defendant-petitioner again filed an application for grant of time and on his prayer time was further extended vide order dated 27.02.1997. 5. Ultimately on 21.08.1998 the trial court fixed the date for settlement of issues, but the defendant-petitioner did not file his proposed issues and hence issues were framed on 28.10.1998 and the case was fixed for evidence. The plaintiffs- opposite parties adduced their evidence but the defendant- petitioner did not produce any witness at all, although opportunity was given on 06.11.1998 to adduce his evidence, but on the date fixed the defendant-petitioner neither appeared nor adduced any evidence and ultimately the suit was decreed with cost on 13.11.1998. 3 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the defendant-petitioner was fully aware of the suit and had also appeared through his counsel, but in spite of passage of several years did not even file his written statement, although several adjournments were granted to him for that purpose. Even at the stage of framing of the issues and leading of evidence several adjournments were granted to enable the defendant- petitioner to give his proposed issues and also to lead evidence, but he failed to avail any of the opportunities and hence the learned trial court had no option but to decide the suit in his absence. 7. It was also quite clear from the facts and circumstances that the defendant-petitioner being a tenant was trying to unnecessarily delay the disposal of the suit merely with a view to linger his possession and to harass the plaintiffs-opposite parties. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )