IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1015 of 2008 RAM RACHHYA RAM & ORS Versus KANIJA KHATOON & ORS ----------- 2 17.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioner being aggrieved by an order refusing to accept the written statement on record has filed this Civil Revision application. Counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the approach of the Court below is rather pedantic and mechanical inasmuch as when it had already allowed the petitioners to file their written statement by an order dated 5.1.2008, its approach in ultimately rejecting the application of the petitioner to recall the earlier order debarring them from filing written statement by an order dated 6.2.2007 is against the spirit of Order VIII Rule-10 C.P.C.. He would submit that the entire case of the defendants who have filed written statement on 25.4.2008 would be prejudiced if they are not allowed to contest the suit on merit. He further submits that as a matter of fact till date neither the issues have been framed nor the witnesses have been examined and, therefore, there was no question of any prejudice to the plaintiff on account of belated filing of the written statement. In the opinion of this Court, the view of the Court below cannot be faulted because it has given sufficient reasons to show that there was callousness on the part of the petitioner in filing their written statement even when the summons were served on them way back on 26.6.2006. But that can not be the end of the matter. The interest of justice would be better sub-served if defendant-petitioners are allowed to contest the suit on merit. If the Court below itself had earlier, after considering the aforementioned aspect of the matter passed an order on 5.1.2008 permitting the petitioners to file their written statement and had also taken the written statement on record on 25.4.2008, it ought to have recalled the order dated 6.2.2007 debarring them from filing written statement by even adequately compensating the plaintiffs, who had suffered by the delaying tactics of the petitioners for a period of nearly two years. At this stage, Mr. Dhinu Kumar submits that the petitioners are ready to compensate the plaintiff/opposite parties and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners had not filed their written statement for a period of two years from the date of service of summons, he offers a sum of Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the plaintiff-opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3, for acceptance of written statement. Considering the aforementioned aspect, this Court would accept the prayer of Mr. Dhinu Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners, and would accordingly direct the Court below to accept the written statement of the petitioners and permit them to contest the suit on merit subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3, /plaintiffs within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this civil Revision application is disposed of. BCJ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)