IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.374 of 2006 SHAKIL AHMAD Versus SAIDA KHATOON & ORS ----------- 5 4.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the parties. The petitioner, defendant in the suit, is aggrieved by an order dated 10.1.2006 whereby and whereunder his prayer for filing of a written statement came to be rejected on the ground that he had no adverse interest to the plaintiff and that such an effort to file written statement was wholly belated. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the peculiar facts of this case would contend that though it is true that the suit was filed in the year 1990 but a compromise was sought to be effected in the year 1991 and thus initially, the defendant/petitioner was not even required to file a written statement but as certain development and events had taken place subsequently due to which not only the proposed compromise could not be effected but even defendant no.7 had to be transposed as a plaintiff and there was no written statement even on behalf of the defendant no.7, it was found necessary by the petitioner to make such 2 prayer for filing written statement on his behalf who is the defendant no.1 to the suit. On the other hand, Counsel for the opposite party, the contesting defendant 2 submits that the whole purpose of the petitioner of filing a written statement by the defendant/petitioner is only to delay the disposal of the suit inasmuch as the compromise effected between him and the transposed plaintiff as well as the original plaintiff is an admitted fact and in fact the plaintiff and the petitioner defendant no.1 are sailing in the same boat and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant/petitioner if he is not allowed, now to file written statement at such a belated stage i.e. after eighteen years of filing of the suit. In reply to the aforementioned submissions, the Counsel for the petitioner defendant no.1 has submitted that under the changed scenario when the compromise could not be effected due to the resistance of the contesting defendant no.2, the defendant no.1 should be shut out from explaining his stand by filing his written statement and that he is 3 prepared to compensate the defendant no.2 for the delay and inconvenience caused as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku reported in AIR 2005 SC 2441. Having taken into consideration, the peculiar facts of this case and the different stages under which the litigation in the suit has undergone wherein at one stage, it was sought to be even compromised between the parties and in fact such compromise had filed, this Court in the interest of justice would allow the petitioner to file his written statement in capacity of the defendant no.1 to the suit specially when there are two sets of defendants contesting the suit and there is no written statement on behalf of one of such sets represented by the petitioner, the defendant no.1. In that view of the matter, this Court would set aside the order of the Court below and direct that the written statement of the defendant no.1 be taken on record if filed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order on a payment of a cost of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousands) is paid by the defendant no.1 to the 4 contesting defendant no.2 to compensate the loss for delay and inconvenience caused to him for a period of nearly seventeen years from the date of filing of his written statement. Accordingly, this civil revision application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)