IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.803 of 2007 RAMESHWAR RAM, S/o Ganesh Ram, R/o Village – Moura Barahrup, P.S. – Bhagwanpur, P.O. – Barishpur, Distt. – Vaishali …….. Plaintiff - Petitioner Versus 1. PHULJHARIA DEVI @ SOHAGI DEVI, D/o Late Chalitar Ram, wife of Ganesh Ram, 2. Ramesh Ram, S/o Ganesh Ram, both are residents of Barahrup, P.O. – Barishpur, P.S. – Bhagwanpur, Distt. - Vaishali, 3. Meena Devi, D/o Ganesh Ram, W/o Naresh Kumar Ram, R/o Village – Kilwat, P.S. – Bidupur, Distt. – Vaishali, 4. Veena Devi, D/o Ganesh Ram, W/o Kamleshwar Das, R/o Village – Daulatpur, P.S. – Sadar, Hajipur, Distt. – Vaishali, 5. Ranju Devi @ Pooja Kumari, D/o Ganaesh Ram, W/o Shiv Prasad Ram, R/o Village – Mahua, P.S. – Bidupur, Distt. – Vaishali, 6. Sanju Devi, D/o Ganesh Ram, W/o Indradeo Das, R/o Vill. + P.S. – Mahnar, Distt. – Vaishali …….. Defendants 1st Set / Opposite parties 1st Set, 7. Ganesh Ram, S/o Late Damari Ram, R/o Village – Barahrup, P.S. – Bhagwanpur, Distt. – Vaishali …… Defendants 2nd Set …. O.P. 2nd Set, 8. Mulia Kuer, S/o late Fatinga Ram, R/o Village – Bakhra Buzurg, P.S. –Bhagwanpur, Distt. – Vaishali and 9. Uma Devi, W/o Kamal Ram, R/o Village- Manganpur Tana, P.S. – Bhagwanpur, Distt. – Vaishali .. Defendants 3rd Set - Opposite Party 3rd Set. ----------- 2. 30.11.2009. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 12.03.2007 passed by the Sub Judge IV, Hajipur at Vaishali in Title Suit No. 7/05 / 6/05, whereby the petition dated 16.12.2006 filed by the petitioner with a prayer for not accepting the written statement filed on behalf of the Defendant No. 3 to 6 and 8 on account of being filed beyond the statutory period provided under 2 Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been rejected by the concerned court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there was service of summons upon the defendants, they had not filed written statement in time as the same had been filed after more than about one year. They had not even filed a petition for grant of leave for extension of time for filing written statement. It is submitted that in that view of the matter, the court concerned ought to have refused to accept the written statement which was not filed within the aforesaid statutory period. The court concerned after hearing the submissions of the parties had come to the conclusion that on the earlier occasion, order had been passed for service of summons by substituted mode. However, that order could not been complied with and, thus, the service of notice / summons remained unconfirmed and, as such, since the case of the concerned defendant was that on 31.08.2006 they got knowledge of the case and thereafter within 90 days they had filed their written statement on 02.12.2006, the same had been accepted by the court. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to establish that the service of summons by substituted process was also complete and confirmed. In the above view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the concerned court while passing the impugned order. As a result, this Civil Revision is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )