IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.197 of 2007 Srikant Prasad, son of late Indradeo Prasad, resident of village Nirkhpur Pali, P.S. and P.O. Paliganj, District Patna. …Defendant no.1-Petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Pravesh Sao, son of late Saligram Sao, resident of villaged Akhtiarpur Pali, P.S. and P.O. Paliganj, District Patna., at present Nirkhpur Pali, P.S. and P.O. Paliganj, District Patna. ….Plaintiff-Opposite Party 2. Ramakant Prasad, son of late Indradeo Prasad, resident of village Nirkhpur Pali, P.S. and P.O. Paliganj, District Patna. …Defendant no.2-Opposite Party ----- For the Petitioner : M/s Mrigendra Kumar, Birendra Singh and Indra Mohan Kumar, Advocates. For O.P. No.1 : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha No.3,Advocate. ----- 03/ 03.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.1- petitioner challenging order dated 16.12.2006, by which learned Subordinate Judge II, Danapur, rejected the petition of the defendant-petitioner for permission to contest Title Suit No. 165 of 1999 by filing his written statement and also for cross-examining the witnesses. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party no.1 for specific performance of contract of sale and other ancillary reliefs. 4. From the civil revision itself, it transpires that earlier notices were sent to the defendants, including the petitioner by both the processes and when the defendant-petitioner did not appear, the trial court passed its order dated 19.09.2000 for 2 substituted service of notice by publication in the newspaper. It also transpires that on 08.11.2000, the plaintiff filed the cutting of newspaper showing publication of the notice, but as no body had appeared, the court fixed the suit for ex- parte hearing. 5. It also transpires from the civil revision that the defendant-petitioner appeared in the said suit on 16.01.2004 and sought permission to file his written statement, which was granted by the learned court below and the case was adjourned for the said purpose, but for about one year no written statement was filed. It is also stated that from 04.04.2005 till 12.08.2005, the plaintiff himself remained absent from the suit as there was talk going on between the parties for a compromise. Thereafter, on 26.09.2005 both the parties appeared and the case was adjourned for filing of the written statement and similar order was passed on 16.11.2005 also with consent of the parties and 09.02.2006 was the date fixed for filing the written statement. It further transpires that even by that date the written statement was not filed and much belatedly on 06.12.2006 a petition was filed by the defendant-petitioner for permission to file his written statement. 6. Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the case was transferred from one court to another, he could not file his written statement and, thereafter, on the direction of the Court, the plaintiff filed the depositions in chief of P.Ws. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 on oath in November and December, 2006, but in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, th ere appears to be 3 intentional laches and unexplained long delay by the defendant- petitioner, who could not even take advantage of lenient attitude of the learned court below. 7. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor does it find any error of jurisdiction therein and, accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )