IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1347 of 2006 BIBI BEGUM Versus BIBI AFSANA BEGUM ----------- 2 30.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order is one by which the defendant/petitioner has been debarred from filing her written statement. The Court below in fact ought to have taken into consideration that there were some compelling circumstances beyond control of the petitioner, a pardanashin lady, who on account of some wrong impression given to her by the persons doing pairvi on her behalf in the case could not file the written statement in time. It is not in dispute that the summons were served and the petitioner had appeared only on 7.2.2005 and the order debarring her from filing written statement came to be passed on 10.5.2005. Apparently she was entitled to some more accommodation and in fact when it is taken into account that such written statement was filed 26.9.2005, at least the interest of justice could have been better served if her written statement could have been taken on record even by imposing cost for the harassment caused to the plaintiff. 2 In that view of the matter, this Court following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhaku reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 2441 would allow this application by setting aside the impugned order and directing the Court below to take the written statement of the petitioner on record on a condition of payment of Rs. 5,000/- by the defendant-petitioner to the opposite party within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)