IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1143 of 2006 BISHWANATH SINGH & ORS Versus KRISHNADEO SINGH ----------- 3 05.12.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. There does not seem to be any jurisdictional error in debarring the defendant-petitioners from filing their written statement. It is however, the case of the petitioners and in fact has also not a nod of approval from the Court below in the impugned order that the petitioners had from the date of their appearance on 1.12.2004 in the suit, had engaged one Sri Ganga Datta Pathak as his counsel who is said to have been died in the month of March 2005. Consequently if the petitioners had sought to explain delay by taking a plea that they had to engage a new counsel and had to explain their case to him leading to filing of delayed written statement in the month of July 2005 the earlier order dated 7.6.2005 of the Court below debarring them from filing of the written statement was fit to be recalled. Since the aforesaid aspect has not been gone into by the Court below, which according to this Court was a genuine circumstance, for condoning the delay of the petitioners in filing their written statement by recalling the order dated 7.6.2005 this Court would set - 2 - aside the impugned order and direct the Court below that the written statement filed by the petitioner should be taken on record by ignoring its earlier order debarring the petitioners from filing their written statement passed on 7.6.2005. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)