IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.531 of 2007 1. Jang Bahadur Rai 2. Radha Prasad Rai Sons of Late Shri Narayan Rai 3. Godabri Devi daughter of Late Shri Narayan Rai, wife of Late Kedar Singh, all residents of village and P.O. Rampur Rajwa (via Hassanpur Sugar Mills), P.S. Hassanpur, District Samastipur……..Defendants 5th party-Petitioners. Versus 1. New India Sugar Mills Ltd. Hassanpur Road, P.O. Hassanpur Sugar Mills, P.S. Hassanpur Sub-Division Rosera, District Samastipur. …….Plaintiff-Opposite party no.1st set. 2. Ramdeo Prasad Rai @ Ramdeo Rai S/o Late Ambika Prasad Rai 3. Kauslendra Kumar Rai 4. Manmohan Rai @ Dhirendra Kr. Rai 5. Madhusudan Rai @ Gayanandan Kr. Rai. 6. Moti Prasad Rai @ Jitendra Kumar Rai Sons of Ramdeo Prasad Rai @ Ramdeo Rai Village Rampur Rajwa, P.O. Hassanpur Sugar Mills, P.S. Hassanpur, District Samastipur. …….Defendants 1st party-Opposite party 2nd set. 7. Most. Ramjahari Devi wife of Late Satya Narain Rai. 8. Raj Kishore Rai. 9. Nawal Kishore Rai 10. Braj Kishore Rai 11. Girish Rai 12. Pappu Kumar Rai Sons of Satya Narain Rai deceased , all residents of village Rampur Rajwa, P.O. Hassanpur Sugar Mills, P.S. Hassanpur, District Samastipur. …..Defendants 2nd party-Opposite party 3rd set. 13. Salim Sah son of Doman Sah 14. Baleshwar Choudhary son of Rameshwar Choudhary 15. Buchhwa Laheri son of Gurushahai Laheri of village Rampur Rajwa (Hassanpur Bazar) P.O. Hassanpur Sugar Mills P.S. Hassanpur, District Samastipur. ……Defendants 3rd party-Opposite party 4th set. 16. Ragho Mishra son of Balkuar Mishra of village and P.O. Hasanpur Sugar Mills, P.S. Hassanpur District Samastipur……….Defendants-4th party-Opposite party 5th set. 17. Mostt. Usha Rai wife of Late Dinesh Rai. 18. Rakesh Kumar 19. Priyank Kumar @ Chhoti, both sons of Late DineshRai. 20. Shrimati Puja Kumari wife of Shri Dilip Kumar and daughter of Late Dinesh Rai, all residents of Rampur Rajwar, P.O. Hassanpur Sugar Mills, P.S. Hassanpur, District Samastipur…..Opposite party 5th set. 2 ----------- 02/ 09.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant nos.11(a) and 11(b)-petitioners challenging order dated 29.12.2006 by which the learned Munsif (Civil Judge), Rosera, rejected their application for accepting the written statement filed on their behalf in Title Suit No.54 of 1981. 3. The aforesaid title suit was filed by plaintiff- opposite party no.1 for declaration that Basgit Parcha granted to defendant no.7 was illegal and fit to be cancelled and for declaration of plaintiff’s title over the suit land and to pass a decree of recovery of possession in favour of plaintiff against defendant no.1st, 2nd and 3rd party and for grant of injunction as well as for removing existing structure from the suit premises by the said defendants and for cost and other ancillary reliefs. 4. It is quite apparent that in the said suit relief was claimed only against defendant no.7, however, by subsequent amendment in the plaint reliefs and land of defendant no.11 was added in the suit whereafter defendant no.11, who was the father of the petitioners, died and in his place petitioners were substituted, and they appeared in the suit on 15.03.1996. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that immediately after their appearance in the suit on 15.03.1996 they filed an application for directing the plaintiff to produce the 3 Patta on which he had based his claim, which was allowed on 12.04.1996 by the learned trial court which ordered the plaintiff to do the same, but it was only ten years thereafter that the plaintiff produced a photocopy of the said Patta on 20.10.2006. He further submits that thereafter petitioners filed their written statement on 17.11.2006 and filed application on 15.12.2006 for accepting the said written statement. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 29.12.2006, which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 6. From the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the materials on record, including the impugned order, it is quite apparent that after the substitution of the petitioners in place of their father defendant no.11, notices were issued to them and the record shows that they had appeared on 16.05.1994 on which date they were directed to file their written statement, but it is apparent from the subsequent orders dated 03.10.1994, 01.12.1994, 29.03.1995 and 29.05.1995 that the substituted defendants were neither appearing nor doing any pairvi nor filing any written statement and hence vide its order dated 29.05.1995 the defendants-petitioners were debarred from filing their written statement. 7. It transpires that about one and half years thereafter a written statement was filed on 17.11.2006 by the defendants-petitioners along with the application dated 15.12.2006. It is thus quite apparent that for more than a year after their appearance the defendants-petitioners did not take any step 4 for filing any written statement, rather they did not even care for making any pairvi in the case and furthermore after about one and half years from the date they were debarred from filing their written statement on 29.05.1995 they filed their written statement on 17.11.2006. In the said circumstances, the learned court below was quite justified in rejecting the application of defendants- petitioners for accepting the written statement. 8. This court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. 9. Since the suit is already about 28 years old, the learned court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties so that it may be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )