IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1033 of 2006 SUBODH SAO @ SUBODH KUMAR & ORS Versus RAMSWAROOP SAO & ORS ----------- 6 18.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the opposite party No.8. Even though the doctrine of pious obligation is a well accepted proposition of Hindu law but then probably it would be going too far if the same is also sought to be adopted and applied in the procedural part in course of hearing in a suit. The father of the defendant no.10 in the suit, caused some delay in filing of a written statement and was saddled with a cost of Rs. 200/- by an order dated 22.9.1998. The father who is no longer alive and has been substituted by his heirs including the defendant- petitioner had appeared before the Court below to contend that the father had remained under the impression that the amount of Rs. 200/- was paid, and as such the written statement filed on his behalf on 2.11.1998 should be accepted after recalling the order 25.11.1998 rejecting such written statement due to not depositing the amount of cost of Rs. 200/-. The defendant petitioner had offered to deposit the said amount of Rs. 200/- for acceptance of the written statement. Such prayer however, has been rejected by the Court below by the impugned order and has given rise to this Civil Revision application. In the peculiar facts of this case, neither the defendant- petitioners can be blamed nor any enquiry can be made from the - 2 - original defendant No.10 who is said to have died in the year, 2003. True it is that the father, defendant No.10 had acquiesced to such an order dated 22.9.1998, but then that will not take away the right of the substituted heirs for either acceptance of the written statement or in fact filing of a fresh written statement. Counsel for the petitioners, however, would submit that there is no requirement of filing fresh written statement and in fact the written statement already filed on 2.11.1998 should be taken on record. There being no opposition to such prayer even after service of notice on opposite party Nos. 1 to 7 and/or by the counsel for the opposite party No.8 who is present in the Court, this Court in the interest of justice would allow this Civil Revision application by setting aside the impugned order provided that the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 2000/- in the court for its being paid to the plaintiffs within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event such a payment is made by the petitioners, the written statement filed on 2.11.1998 will be taken on record and they would be permitted to contest the suit. With the aforementioned observations and directions this Civil Revision application is allowed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)