IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.441 of 2009 1. Bigu Pandey 2. Satendra Pandey Both sons of Late Narayan Pandey resident of Village Pandey Karma P.O. Simari Dhamani P.S. Mali Dist. Aurangabad Plaintiffs-petitioners Versus 1. Maharaj Pandey 2. Lakhraj Pandey Sons of Late Ramdeo Pandey 3. Bala Pandey Son of Raghupat Pandey 4. Rajeshwar Pandey 5. Janeshwar Pandey 6. Paras Pandey 7. Suraj Nath Pandey 8. Ram Chandra Pandey 9. Indra Pandey 10. Muneshwar Pandey 11. Sumer Pandey All sons of late Bisheshwar Pandey resident of Village Pandey Karma P.O. Simari Dhamani P.S. Mali Dist. Aurangabad Defendants-opposite parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi, Sr. Advocate For the Opposite party no. 4: Mr Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate -------------- 09 27.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for opposite party no.4. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners challenging order dated 17.01.2009 by which learned Subordinate Judge I, Aurangabad allowed Misc. Case no. 36 of 2006 initiated on the application of defendant no.4 dated 23.12.2003 filed in Partition Suit no. 193 of 2002. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners for partition of their 1/4th share in Schedule B property of the plaint and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that on 02.09.2003 a joint written statement was filed by defendant nos. 1 to 4 where after a compromise petition dated 30.11.2004 was filed by all the plaintiffs - 2 - and the defendants except defendant no.4. 4. It also transpires that on 20.10.2005 a separate written statement was filed by defendant no.4 along with an application for accepting the same. The said application has been numbered by the learned court below as Misc. Case no. 36 of 2006, which was contested by the plaintiffs-petitioners and evidence were led by both the parties and after considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties the learned court below found that it would be equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case to allow defendant no.4 to file his separate written statement. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners has stated that defendant no.4 merely claimed that defendant nos. 1 to 3 had obtained his signature on blank paper on the pretext that it was required for compromise but he failed to explain that if he had signed for compromise why he did not enter into compromise when all the parties to the suit had entered into compromise. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners also stated that defendant no.4 in his pleadings and evidence could not give any justification of his denying earlier written statement of defendant nos. 1 to 4 when he had himself admitted his signature on it. 6. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the specific claim of defendant no.4 was that on the request of defendant nos. 1 to 3 he had signed on blank paper not for the purpose of written statement. There is nothing to disbelieve the said statement. Hence in the said circumstance, the joint written statement dated - 3 - 02.09.2003 cannot be legally held to be a written statement on behalf of defendant no.4 also. So far as compromise is connerned, it is quite apparent that defendant no.4 has not entered into compromise and the suit can not be decided without hearing defendant no.4. Furthermore, the statements made in the joint written statement dated 02.09.2003 is quite different from the statements made in the written statement dated 20.10.2005 filed by defendant no.4 alone. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below nor there is any error of jurisdiction therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)