IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.547 of 2007 Vimal Kumar, son of Lal Bahadur Prasad, Resident of village Dadanchak, P.O. Mazarganj, District Sitamarhi. ……..Defendant no.2-Petitioner. Versus 1. Urmila Devi, D/o Late Budhan Mistry, Resident of Mohalla Maripur, Ward No.7, P.S. Kazimohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur, ……..Plaintiff-Opposite party 1st set. 2. Surati Devi wife of Late Khakhanu Mistry, Resident of Mohalla Maripur, Ward No.7, P.S. Kazimohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur. .…Defendant 1st party-Opposite party 2nd set. 3. Lal Bahadur Prasad, son of Late Ramlagan Prasad, Resident of village Dadanchak, P.S. Mazarganj, District Sitamarhi, at present resident of Mohalla Bibiganj Railway Quarter, P.S. Kazimohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur. …..Defendant 2nd party-Opposite party 3rd set. 4. Ramjhari Devi wife of Late Jhalu Mistry, Resident of Mohalla Maripur, Ward No.7, P.S. Kazimohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur, 5. Tara Devi 6. Sudama Devi 7. Neelam Devi 8. Poonam Devi 5 to 8 all are daughters of Jhallu Mistry, all residents of Mohalla Maripur, Ward No.7, P.S. Kazimohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur, ….Defendant 3rd party-Opposite party 4th set. For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 05.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.2-petitioner challenging order dated 15.01.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Muzaffarpur, rejected his prayer for permission to file written statement in Title Suit No.122 of 1983. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the plaintiff- opposite party 1st set for declaration of her title over the suit 2 property and also for recovery of possession and permanent injunction, etc. It transpires that mother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Kiran Devi was one of the defendants in the said suit and after her death the petitioner was substituted in her place in the year 1994 while his father Lal Bahadur Prasad was already a party to the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1994 when defendant-petitioner was substituted he was only nine years old and hence he could not appear and file his written statement and his natural guardian, namely his father who was already a party to the suit, did not also take any step in that regard. He further submits that when he attained majority the defendant-petitioner filed an application on 04.12.2006 for permission to file his written statement in the suit. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 15.01.2007, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. From the aforesaid arguments as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that even according to the claim of the petitioner he was nine years old in the year 1994 when he was substituted in place of his mother and hence admittedly he had attained majority in the year 2003, but he did not take any step in the suit till December, 2006. 6. The learned court below has very carefully gone through the materials on record and has found that notices were issued and were validly served upon all the defendants, including 3 defendant-petitioner, which was apparent from order dated 02.04.1998 of the learned court below, but in spite of that defendant-petitioner did not appear, although his father appeared in the suit and contested. 7. The learned court below found from the records that orders dated 24.07.2006 and 02.08.2006 clearly showed that defendant-petitioner had information about the pendency of the suit since much before and he did not take any step until the issues were framed on 12.07.2006 and that defendant 2nd party had been through out using dilatory tactics which was clear from orders dated 07.09.2006 and 24.11.2006. This attitude of the defendant and that too in a suit, which was already 23 years old cannot be allowed to flourish. 8. The learned court below also found that no mention had been made by the defendant-petitioner that there was any separation or partition between him and his father and hence according to the specific provisions of the Hindu Law they belonged to the same joint family. The learned court below further found that the application filed by the defendant-petitioner in the learned court below neither contained any affidavit nor any verification. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )