IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12649 of 2010 1. Vimal Kumar S/O Lal Bahadur Prasad R/O Mohalla- Narainpur, P.S.- Kazimohmadpur And Distt.- Muzaffarpur Versus 1. Urmila Devi W/O Raj Narain Sharma R/O Muhalla- Mripur, Ward No.7, P.S.- Kazimohmadpur Munsifi Muzaffarpur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 2. Deobanti Devi W/O Ramdeo Sharma R/O Muhalla- Mripur, Ward No.7, P.S.- Kazimohmadpur Munsifi Muzaffarpur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur 3. Shruti Devi W/O Late Khakhanoo Mistary 4. Umesh Mistary Minor S/O Khakhanoo Mistary, Through Mother And Natural Guardian Respondent No.3 5. Lal Bahadur Prasad S/O Not Known 6. Ramjhari Devi W/O Late Jhalu Mistary 7. Tara Devi W/O Lal Bihari Sharma 8. Sudama Devi W/O Umesh Sharma 9. Neelam Devi W/O Kedar Sharma 10. Poonam Devi W/O Shivjee Sharma 11. Deo Narain Sharma S/O Late Butai Sharma 12. Most. Gayetri Devi W/O Late Lakshmi Sharma 13. Bhola Sharma Minor S/O Late Lakshami Sharma Through Mother And Natural Guardian Respondent No. 12 ---------------------- 04 06.09.2011 Heard Mr Chandra Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.04.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Judge, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No.122 of 1983 whereby the petition filed by the defendant- petitioner seeking permission to file written statement has been rejected. The suit in question was filed for declaration of title and possession over the suit property. During the pendency of the suit the mother of the present petitioner Smt. Kiran Devi expired leading to the substitution of the present petitioner vide order dated 22.04.2010. It so appears that the petitioner at the relevant stage was minor under the guardianship of his father. On 04.12.2006 a 2 petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission of the trial Court to file a written statement and which was rejected by order dated 15.1.2007. The petitioner did not choose to assail the order and instead file a second petition on 24.02.2010 mentioning therein that as he had attained the majority hence he should be permitted to file a written statement. The prayer of the petitioner was rejected inter alia on grounds of delay and resjudicata. The court below took notice of the fact that the petitioner himself admitted that he was aged about 25 years on the date of filing of the second petition meaning thereby he had attained majority some 7 years back in the year 2003 itself. In the aforesaid circumstances and on the grounds that the similar application had been rejected by the Court below on 15.1.2007 the second application was rejected and which has been challenged in the present application. The only ground raised by the petitioner seeking permission to file a written statement is that since after the death of his mother his father had got married for a second time and had stopped protecting his interest and it is in this background that he had sought permission from the Court to file a separate written statement as the suit property also included the land belonging to his late mother. Be that as it may, no explanation has been given by the petitioner as to the reasons for filing an application seeking permission to file written statement at such belated stage when as per his own admission he had attained majority in the year, 2003. 3 There is no explanation again, as to why the petitioner did not choose to question the earlier order of rejection of similar prayer on 15.01.2007. That being the position, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The writ petition is dismissed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)