IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.626 of 2007 Mukesh Singh, S/o Dhanik Singh, Resident of Barauni, P.S. Teghara, District Begusarai. ……..Defendant no.8, 3rd party-Petitioner. Versus 1. Ram Prakash Singh 2. Sunil Kumar Singh, both sons of late Ram Swaroop Singh 3. Most. Rentu Devi widow of Gopal Singh 4. Satiyam Kumar son of late Gopal Singh 5. Shuvamb Kumar son of late Gopal Singh 6. Ratnesh Kumar son of Ram Prakash Singh 7. Praveen Kumar son of Ram Prakash Singh 8. Roshan Kumar son of Sunil Kumar Singh under the guardianship of his father. All are resident of village Brauni-1, Pargana Malki, P.O. Barauni Deorhi, Sub-division and Sub-Registry Teghra District Begusarai. …………Plaintiffs-Opposite party 1st set. 9. Permanand Singh son of late Chandrashekhar Singh 10. Dinesh Singh son of Ram Sagar Singh 11. Anju Devi wife of Permanand Singh 12. Ranju Devi wife of Dinesh Singh 13. Ram Sagar Singh son of late Baudhu Singh All resident of village Barauini-1 Pargana Maliki, P.O. Barauni, Deorhi,Sub-division and Sub-Registry Teghra, District Begusarai …….Defendant 1st party-Opposite party 2nd Set. 14. Sunita Mishra widow of Vijay Narayan Mishra, resident of village Barauni-1, PO. Barauni Deorhi,Sub- division and Sub-Registry Teghra, District Begusarai, at present residing at village Bishunpur, P.O.Mirzapur Banduar Pergana Balia, P.S., Sub-division and District Begusarai. …..Defendant 2nd party -Opposite party 3rd set. 15. Maya Devi wife of late Suresh Singh 16. Sanjay Kumar son of Late Suresh Singh 17. Sumit Kumar son of late Suresh Singh All resident of village Barauni -2 Pergana Maliki, P.O. Barauni Deorhi, Sub-division and Sub-Registry Teghra, District Begusarai. 18. Bhushan Singh son of Dhanik Singh 19. Ram Balak Singh son of Birju Singh 20. Chandramauli Singh son of Birju Singh All resident of village Barauni -2 Pergana Maliki, P.O.Barauni Deorhi Sub-division and Sub-Registry Teghra, District Begusarai. …………..Defendant 3rd party-Opposite party 4th set. 21. Laddu Devi, wife of late Ram Charitra Singh 22. Ram Bilash Singh son of late Ram Charitra Singh 2 All resident of village Barauni -2 Pergana Maliki, P.O.Barauni Deorhi Sub-division and Sub-Registry Teghra, District Begusarai. 23. Indu Devi wife of late Permanand Mahton 24. Mukesh Mahton son of Permanand Mahton 25. Ram Sumran Mahton son of late Borhan Mahton 26. Arun Mahton son of late Borhan Mahton All resident of village Barauni -2 Pergana Maliki, P.O. Barauni Deorhi, Sub-division and Sub-Registry Teghra District Begusarai. …….Defendant 4th party-Opposite party 5th set. For the petitioner : Mr. Pramod Manbansh, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 03/ 08.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant no.8-petitioner challenging order dated 21.11.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-IV, Begusarai, rejected the prayer of the petitioner to recall order dated 19.08.2003 by which he was debarred from filing his written statement in Title Suit No.51 of 2002. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-opposite 1st set for declaration of their title and also or setting aside the sale deeds executed by Vijay Narayan Singh in favour of Anju Devi and Ranju Devi and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that in the said suit summons were issued but according to the petitioner summon was not served upon him but admittedly he appeared in the suit on 13.06.2003. 4. However after lapse of more than two months he filed an application for grant of time to file his written statement. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the attitude of the defendant no.8, learned court below vide its order 3 dated 19.08.2003 rejected the said application and debarred the petitioner from filing his written statement. 5. It further transpires that on 27.12.2005 an application was filed by defendant-petitioner for recall of the earlier order dated 19.08.2003, but vide order dated 02.03.2006 the learned court below observed that since no written statement was on record there was no question for considering the application for recall filed by the said defendant. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that on 23.05.2006 the learned court below directed the defendant- petitioner along with defendant nos.7, 12 and 13 to file their written statement and accordingly on 10.07.2006 defendant no.8 (petitioner) filed his written statement, but subsequently his application for recall of order dated 19.08.2003 was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 21.11.2006, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 7. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is quite apparent that there are serious laches on the part of the defendant-petitioner as after appearing in the suit on 13.06.2003 he should have filed his written statement or an adjournment petition within 30 days but he failed to do so and after more than two months he filed an application for allowing him to file his written statement which was rightly rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 19.08.2003 and he was debarred. 8. The said order was not challenged by defendant- petitioner before any higher court and more than two years four 4 months thereafter he filed an application before the learned court below on 27.12.2005 for recall of order dated 19.08.2003. Even then no written statement was filed by defendant no.8 (petitioner) along with the said application dated 27.12.2005, hence the leaned court below quite rightly observed vide order dated 02.03.2006 that no written statement being on record there was no question of any recall. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has led much stress on order dated 26.06.2006 by which learned court below directed defendant nos.7, 8, 12 and 13 to file their written statement whereafter it was filed by defendant no.8 (petitioner) on 10.07.2006. The said order is being misconstrued as it does not speak that if the written statement will be filed it would be accepted or the earlier order dated 19.08.2003 would be recalled, rather the said matter as per the application of defendant-petitioner dated 27.12.2005 had to be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. 10. Learned court below vide its impugned order has considered the matter in detail and has come to the specific conclusion that there were laches on the part of the defendant- petitioner and although he appeared in the suit on 13.06.2003, he filed his written statement after more than three years thereafter i.e. on 10.07.2006. It was also found that order dated 19.08.2003 was legal and proper and there was no occasion to recall the said order. 11. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that 5 the impugned order of the learned court below is legal and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )