IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.973 of 2009 ---- Manoj Kumar Singh, son of Babu Narendra Kumar Singh Matofa, Village Hasanpur, Police Station Hasanpur, District-Samastipur. --Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Surendra Kumar Singh@Shyam Lal Jee son of Babu Ambika Prasad Singh Matofa, resident of Village Hasanpur, Police Station Hasanpur, P.O. Hasanpur Sub-Division Rosra, District- Samastipur. -- Plaintiff-Opposite 1st party. 2. Harendra Kumar Singh 3. Babu Bhupendra Kumar Singh @ Bhulan Singh. 4. Babu Satyendra Kr. Singh @ Vimal Singh. 5. Babu Shailendra Kr. Singh @ Manik Singh All 2 to 5 sons of Babu Narendra Kr. Singh Matofa, resident of Village Hasanpur P.O. and Police Station Hasanpur Sub- Division Rosara, District-Samastipur. -- Defendants-Opposity 2nd Party. ----- For the petitioner : M/s. V.Nath, Neeraj Kumar & Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocates. For the opposite parties: None. ----- 03. 17.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.5- petitioner challenging order dated 06.04.2009 by which the learned Subordinate Judge, II, Rosera rejected his petition for accepting the written statement filed by him in Partition Suit No.25 of 2005 because it was filed after the expiry of the statutory period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for partition of his moiety share in the suit property and for other ancillary reliefs. Notices were sent to the defendants of the suit, including the petitioner upon whom notice was served on - 2 - 31.01.2007 and on 23.02.2007 he appeared along defendants no.2 to 4 who jointly filed a petition for allowing them time for filing their written statement and the court on the same date gave them time up to 23.05.2007 for filing their written statement. It transpires that on 23.05.2007 joint written statement was filed on behalf of defendants no.2 to 4, but no written statement was filed on behalf of defendant no.5 (petitioner) on the said date. 4. It transpires that after about two years of his appearance, defendant no.5 (petitioner) filed his written statement on 13.2.2009 and also filed a petition dated 19.2.2009 for accepting the said written statement claiming that defendants no.2 to 4 had duped him and had gone in collusion with the plaintiff. This petition has been rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order dated 06.04.2009. 5. After some argument, learned counsel for defendant no.5-petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this civil revision as he wants to adopt the written statement already filed by defendant no.1 on 26.05.2007 which has been accepted by the trial court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and this civil revision is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner (defendant no.5) to adopt the written statement of defendant no.1 which has already been filed in the suit. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)