IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14086 of 2010 1. SHIV KUMAR S/O SRI SURENDRA PRASAD R/O PUNPUN BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- PUNPUN, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. NAND KISHORE PRASAD S/O LATE YAMUNA SAO R/O PUNPUN BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- PUNPUN, DISTT.- PATNA 2. SURENDRA PRASAD S/O LATE NARAYAN SAO R/O PUNPUN BAZAR, P.O. & P.S.- PUNPUN, DISTT.- PATNA ----------- 02. 20.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the Munsif, Masaurhi in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2009. The petitioner is the defendant in the Eviction Suit. It is submitted that there was no justification to allow the respondent plaintiffs to lead further evidence-in-chief merely because a subsequent application for permission to file a written statement was allowed. The next submission is that there was no justification for allowing the application to implead the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 348 of 2009 as respondent no.2 in the Eviction Suit as no relief was claimed against him. The present Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2009, undoubtedly was filed at the very commencement of the year. On receiving summons it was for the petitioner to have been more vigilant and filed his 2 written statement in time. Proceedings could not await his leisure. The plaintiff therefore proceeded with his evidence-in-chief. He did not have the benefit of the written statement of the petitioner. The Court has been more than indulgent to the petitioner by subsequently permitting him to file a written statement. The satisfaction of the Trial Court in the circumstances to permit the plaintiff to lead his evidence-in-chief afresh or to supplement in view of the written statement cannot be faulted with. Title Suit No. 348 of 2009 has been filed by none other than the father of the petitioner. It seeks to raise a dispute with regard to title of the lands which are the subject matter of the Eviction Suit. The fact that the plaintiff in Eviction Suit No. 348 of 2009 is none other than the father of the petitioner satisfies the court that the order impugned dated 6.8.2010 permitting the petitioner’s father to be added as respondent no.2 was fully justified in law as it shall definitely shorten litigation. Had the relationship of father and son not existed between them different consideration may have arisen. The application stands dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)