IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10890 of 2011 MITHILESH KUMAR RAI - Petitioner/s(s) Versus DHARMAWATI DEVI & ORS - Respondent/s(s) _____________ 2. 12.07.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner. This writ application has been filed against the order dated 1.6.2011 as contained in Annexure 3 passed by Sub- ordinate Judge-II, Buxar in Title Suit No. 206 of 1993 whereby the learned court below allowed the defendant No.4 to adopt the written statement of the defendant No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without any explanation by the defendant No.4 about the delay the learned court below by the impugned order allowed him to adopt the written statement. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the defendant No.4 has only filed an application stating that he is adopting the written statement of the defendant No.5. It further appears that he has already cross examined the witnesses. 2 By the impugned order he has only been permitted to adopt the written statement of the defendant No.5. No new plea has been taken nor any additional evidence appears to be necessary in this case and, therefore, the learned court below has allowed the prayer of the defendant No.4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case by the impugned order the learned court below only allowed to adopt the written statement, in my opinion it is not a case where it can be said that the learned court below acted beyond his jurisdiction or any injustice has been done to the plaintiff petitioner. Thus, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)