IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8941 of 2010 1. LAXMAN SINGH S/O LATE BAIKUNTH SINGH 2. CHANDRABHAN SINGH S/O LATE RAMJI SINGH 3. BINOD KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAMRUP SINGH 4. NAND KISHORE SHUKLA S/O KAMESHWAR SHUKLA 5. ANIRUDH SHUKLA S/O KAMESHWAR SHUKLA ALL R/O VILL.- DIHARA, P.S. KUDRA, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABUA). PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE D.M.KAIMUR. 2. BANARASI PANDEY S/O LATE RAM KISHUN PANDEY 3. LALLAN PANDEY S/O BANARASI PANDEY 4. BABAN PANDEY S/O BANARASI PANDEY 5. RAM BHARAT PANDEY S/O BANARASI PANDEY ALL R/O VILL.- JEHANABAD, P.O.+P.S.- KUDRA, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABUA). ……. PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS 1ST SET. 6. MOSTT. RAM SAWARI KUER W/O LATE GUPTESHWAR PANDEY 7. AWADH BIHARI PANDEY (MINOR) S/O LATE GUPTESHWAR PANDEY. 8. RUCHHI KUMARI (MINOR) D/O LATE GUPTESHWAR PANDEY RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 BOTH ARE UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MOSTT. RAM SAWARI KUER ALL ARE R/O VILL.- JEHANABAD, P.O.+P.S.- KUDRA, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABUA). 9. PREMLATA DEVI W/O GUDDU TIWARY R/O VILL.- PARASIYA, P.S. BHABUA, DISTT.- KAIMUR (BHABUA). ….DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS- RESPONDENTS 2ND SET. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Sudama Singh, Advocate. Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Shalini Raut, A.C. to G.A.V. ------ 02/ 27.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 27.07.2009 by which Subordinate Judge- II, Bhabua (Kaimur) rejected their applications dated 17.07.2009 - 2 - and 18.06.2009 for recall of order dated 13.06.2005 and for accepting their written statement in Title Suit No.21 of 2000. 3. It transpires that the aforesaid suit was filed by plaintiffs-respondents 1st Set as far back as in the year 2000 for declaration of their title and also for declaration that several deeds were illegal and void. It further transpires that notices were issued to the defendants-petitioners who appeared in 2000 itself in the aforesaid suit but for about five years, they did not file any written statement and accordingly vide order dated 13.05.2005 they were debarred from filing their written statement. It further transpires that four years thereafter i.e. on 17.07.2009 and 18.06.2009, applications were filed by the defendants-petitioners for recall of the earlier order and for accepting the written statement. The said applications have been rejected by the court below vide its impugned order dated 27.07.2009. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that delay was caused not due to the fault of the defendants-petitioners, rather their counsel did not inform them about the specific requirements in law and only when they changed their lawyer in the year 2009 they came to know about the entire matter. This explanation does not appear to be convincing as it cannot be believed that for nine years after their appearance in the suit the defendants-petitioners had no knowledge what steps were to be taken in the suit. No doubt, the provision of Order VIII Rule 1 is not mandatory in nature but it has to be strictly adhered to as filing - 3 - of written statement within the period prescribed is a rule, whereas accepting the written statement beyond it should be exception only in very compelling circumstances or calamities. Reference may be made to a decision of this court in case of Smt. Sunita Devi & Ors. Vs. Abdhesh Kumar Sinha @ Kamleshwari Pd. Sinha & Ors, reported in 2005 (2) P.L.J.R.482 as well as a decision of the Apex Court in case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors, reported in 2005 (3) P.L.J.R.(SC) 241. 5. In the said circumstances, learned court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order and this court does not find any illegality in it. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)