IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1277 of 2008 RAM UDAR PANDEY & ANR Versus RAM AUTAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY & ORS ----------- 2 13/8/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court the approach of the court below in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for accepting written statement seems to be wholly justified, in as much as, the court below has given cogent reason in its reasoned detail order as to how the petitioner intended to practice fraud even on the court by producing a certificate of illness. From a bare perusal of Annexure-1, the certificate issued by the Government of Arunanchal Pradesh, Government Primary Health Centre, Jote, Papumpare ( A.P.), it is clear that a doctor claiming to be Medical Officer in a Government Primary Health Centre, Jote, Papumpare had certified that the petitioner Smt. Kalavati Devi was/is under his treatment for various diseases for a period from 16.11.2006 to 15.5.2007, in as much as, he has clarified in the said certificate by saying that the petitioner is still advised bed rest. Now if this certificate is sought to be explained by counsel for the petitioner by saying that the figure 15.5.2007 should be read as 15.3.2007 as there is some cutting in the certified portion, this Court on perusal of the said document and its comparison with Annexure-1/A would find in it that there was a definite 2 interpolation made by some one in the said certificate after it was issued on 15.5.2007. The net impact of the said certificate is that the petitioner is said to be suffering from the disease for a period from 16.11.2006 to 15.5.2007 and still the petitioner was required to undergo bed rest as on 15.05.2007. In that view of the matter, it really becomes wholly indefensible action on the part of the petitioner to now state that on 15.4.2007 the petitioner had already improved and therefore had appeared before the court below by swearing an affidavit in course of filing written statement. Ordinarily, on account of such conduct of the petitioner she was not entitled to contest the litigation with her wholly belated written statement especially when she had not approached the court below with clean hand. At this stage, Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would seek indulgence of this Court to accept the written statement on record in a suit of the year 2006 as its refusal will lead to a very serious repercussions on the fate and future of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also offered to pay a suitable cost for the delay in filing the written statement. Considering the interest of justice and the aforementioned request, this Court would award a cost of Rs. 25,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff, opposite party and 3 Rs. 20,000/- be deposited by the petitioner before the Patna High Court Legal Services Authority. On furnishing proof of payment within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order the court below will accept the written statement so filed by the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction/observation this civil revision application is disposed of. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar