IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10918 of 2011 Dinesh Singh Versus Seema Singh & Ors ----------- 02. 13.07.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who was defendant no.4 in the Court below. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 04.04.2011 as contained in Annexure-4 passed by Sub Judge I, Patna in Title Suit No.386 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner for holding an enquiry regarding as to whether the written statement along with affidavit filed jointly by other defendants earlier bears the signature of this petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a serious matter and, therefore, under Section 151 C.P.C., the learned Court below should have initiated a separate miscellaneous proceeding to enquire about the fact. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner filed a separate written statement subsequently denying that earlier written statement filed by the other respondent purported to have been signed by this petitioner did not bear his signature and prayed for an enquiry and to reject written statement filed earlier and to accept the subsequent written statement filed by the petitioner but the learned Court below by impugned order 2 rejected the prayer. Admittedly, according to the petitioner, a subsequent written statement has been filed by him. From the impugned order, it does not appear that the learned Court below has rejected the written statement filed earlier. It is a matter of trial as to which one of the written statements filed by the petitioner is genuine one and that may only be gone into at the time of final hearing on the basis of the evidences given. In view of the above facts that the petitioner has got the opportunity to raise this question during the trial, it is not a fit case for interference in the impugned order under the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)