IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17640 of 2010 PRAMOD KAMTI . Versus THAKURJEE SHRI SHRI 108 SITARAMJEE MAHARAJ & ANOTHER . ----------- 02. 03.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 112 of 2002 by Sub- Judge-V, Darbhanga. By the impugned order the petitioner has been debarred from filing his written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though belated the written statement has been filed. It may be directed to be accepted subject to costs. Issues have not yet been framed. The petitioner shall be seriously prejudiced, if the written statement is not accepted. The Suit is of the year 2002. The impugned order notices that as far back as 9.7.2003 the proceedings were directed to proceed ex-parte, when the petitioner did not appear in response to the summons as a defendant. No sooner that the Suit was directed to proceed ex-parte, he enters appearance on 1.9.2003 and prays for recall of the ex-parte order. That was allowed subject to costs of Rs.350.- He then made an application that he was unable to deposit the costs. He was debarred from filing his written statement on 31.8.2004. On 2.11.2004 he filed another application for recall of the earlier order which was accepted on 28.5.2005 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2 2850/-. On 28.6.2005 instead of depositing costs in accordance with order dated 28.5.2005 he deposited costs as awarded on 1.9.2003 stating that due to paucity of money he is unable to deposit. He again gave an application to exempt from depositing costs. This was rejected on 12.12.2007. He then deposited the balance costs on 28.1.2008 requesting that since issues were yet to be framed the order dated 28.6.2005 directing deposit of costs may be recalled. All this while he had the opportunity to file his written statement, but did not do so, delaying the proceeding on the issue of costs and recall only. He had been debarred from filing his written statement as far back as 31.5.2004. On the aforesaid discussion, the trial court records its conclusion that the petitioner was seeking to take advantage of Court proceeding by adopting dilatory tactics and avoiding to file his written statement on one pretext or the other. The written statement was ultimately filed nearly five years later. The trial court therefore proceeded to reject the written statement. The petitioner has only himself to blame and by his own conduct had himself debarred from filing a written statement. He was not vigilant for the protection of his own interest. At every steps right from the stage of receipt of summons, he evaded appearance leading to an ex-parte 3 order, entered appearance soon thereafter, got the benefit of recall did not deposit costs, filed application for recall wavering on deposit of costs subsequently deposited the costs and in this manner appears to have succeeded sufficiently in stalling in progress in the Suit since the year 2002. The manner and yardstick on which litigation may have moved a decay or two back cannot be relevant for today’s circumstances when delay in disposal of matters, specially civil, is the concern of one and all and efforts are repeatedly being made to find solutions for the same. The petitioner is alone to blame for the predicament for he has created for himself. The application is dismissed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)