IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1769 of 2006 MD.EHSANUL HAQUE, Son of late Noor Mohammad, resident of Mohalla Purani Bazar, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada Defendant …… Petitioner Versus 1. BIBI MEHRUNNISSA , widow of late Noor Mohammad, resident of Mohalla Purani Bazar, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada 2. Md. Rounak @ Raunak Ehsan, Son of late Noor Mohammed, resident of Mohalla Purani Bazar, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada .. Intervenor Plaintiff….. Opposite Party For the petitioner : M/s Binod Kumar Singh, Mrigendra Kumar Advocates For O.P. Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mishra, Advocate ----- 8 26.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party nos. 1 and 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 1.8.2006, whereby the Sub-Judge, II, Nawada, has rejected the prayer of the defendant – petitioner for grant of leave for filing additional written statement in which this petitioner has claimed certain relief by way of counter claim. Learned counsel for the defendant petitioner at the very threshold submitted that it is an eviction suit and though he may not be allowed to raise counter claim for declaration that the alleged oral hibba dated 17.12.2001 - 2 - and the alleged registered deed of gift dated 3.10.2002 be declared as illegal, inoperative and not binding upon the defendants, however, the additional written statement may be allowed to be kept on record and seen as the additional pleading of this defendant as the same has been filed after the intervenor Md. Rounak @ Raunak Ehsan has been added as plaintiff no. 2 by order dated 5.2.2003 passed by this Court on his petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10 . This petitioner has filed written statement on 13.5.1999 itself, thereafter, one of the order had been challenged before this Court in C.R. No. 338 of 2003. This Court vide Annexure 3 passed in aforesaid civil revision had observed that the question whether by virtue of the registered deed of gift, opposite party no. 2 had acquired any right or not will would seen at the time of final disposal of the mater and not that stage. In that view of the mater it is urged that if the petitioner is not allowed to make his pleading by way of additional written statement then he would not be in a position to controvert the right of opposite party No. 2, however, he fairly concedes this - 3 - being the situation he cannot raise this issue as a counter claim for a declaration in his favour. Learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the defendant petitioner had filed his additional written statement after much delay, therefore, the same could not be allowed to be accepted at this stage. In my opinion, court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in order dated 1.8.2006 refusing to grant leave to the petitioner to make a counter claim at this stage. However, since this Court has already made an observation in the order dated 13.3.20032 passed in Civil Revision No. 338 of 2003 that the question whether by virtue of registered deed of gift opposite party No. 2 had acquired any right or not would be seen at the time of final disposal of the suit and also the fact that this defendant – petitioner had filed his written statement as early on 13.5.1999 and thereafter in 2002 O.P .No. 2 had been added as co-plaintiff in the suit, it would be proper to allow him to file his pleading with respect to the case of the newly added plaintiff as the issue has already directed to be decided at the time of hearing of the suit. - 4 - In that view of the mater I direct that the additional written statement concerned be accepted as his pleading however, the counter claim, as has been raised in para no. 6, thereof would not be allowed to be raised by this petitioner – defendant and during the course of hearing of the suit, para no. 6 of the additional written statement would not be read. Since there has been delay in filing of additional written statement by this petitioner, this order would be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3000/- to the O.P .No. 2 within one month from today. It is submitted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 that the suit is of the year 1997 itself thus it requires early disposal. In that view of the mater I direct Court concerned to take every step for expeditious disposal of this suit. With the aforesaid observation and direction this Civil Revision is disposed of. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) -----------