IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.225 of 2008 AJIT KUMAR ROY @ AJIT ROY @ AMIT RAI & ORS Versus BANSHI RAI & ORS ----------- 04. 06.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition is being disposed of at this stage itself at the instance of the petitioners. This civil revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging order dated 14.01.2008 by which learned Munsif, 2, Chapra, rejected their petition under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title Suit No.127 of 1999. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-Opposite parties for declaration of title and recovery of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that the aforesaid suit was filed in the year 1999 and in the same year the defendants-petitioners appeared in the suit, but they did not file any written statement for more than five years and hence by order dated 18.01.2005 they were debarred from filing their written statement by the learned court below. It transpires that thereafter a petition was filed by the defendants-petitioners raising the issue of maintainability of the suit, but the said petition was rejected by the learned court below by order dated 12.02.2006 which was challenged by the defendants- petitioners in Civil Revision No.786 of 2006 which was also dismissed by this court on 08.10.2007. It transpires that only after the dismissal of the civil revision the defendants-petitioners filed their written statement - 2 - on 19.11.2007 along with a petition for accepting the said petition. The said petition was rejected by the learned court below on 19.11.2007 on the ground that since by order dated 18.01.2005 they had been debarred from filing their written statement it cannot be accepted. It transpires that thereafter on 03.01.2008, the defendants- petitioners filed a petition for recall of order dated 18.01.2005 on the ground that they were contesting the claim of the plaintiffs in other cases before other courts of law and were also raising the issue of maintainability of the instant suit itself. By the impugned order dated 14.01.2008 the learned court below rejected the said petition of the defendants-petitioners on the ground that the defendants appeared in the suit in the year 1999 itself and hence they could have filed their written statement immediately thereafter as pendency of other cases before other courts of law did not affect the proceeding of the instant suit. Furthermore, the defendants-petitioners were debarred from filing their written statement on 18.01.2005 and on that date no petition for maintainability was pending. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and accordingly this civil revision is dismissed. sunil ( S.N.Hussain,J.)