IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.342 of 2008 CHHOTU PRASAD, son of Late Indra Prasad, resident of Village – Mauza Jhaua, PO Jhaua, PS Awatar Nagar, Chapra, Saran …. Defendant no.3/Petitioner Versus 1. RAM WATI DEVI , D/o Late Ram Lakhan Sah, wife of Deodatt Prasad, resident of Mohalla – Mauna Chauk, PS Chapra, Town, Chapra Saran, Present address Jhauan, PO Jhaua, PS Awatar Nagar, Chapra, Saran 2. Ajay Kumar 3. Ranjan Kumar - sons of Jainath Prasad 4. Nilam Devi 5. Punam Devi 6. Munni Devi -Daughters of Jainath Prasad 7. Jainath Prasad S/o Late Sugulam Sah -All residents of village – Laxmanpur, PS Bihta, District Patna, present address Village Jhaua, PO Jhaua, PS Awatar Nagar, Chapra, Saran 8. Kewali Devi W/o Late Ram Lakhan Prasaad, resident of village Jhauna, PO Jhaua, PS Awatar Nagar, Chapra, Saran ….Plaintiff/Opp.Party 1st set 9. Prabha Gupta W/o Late Indra Prasad 10. Bhushan Prasad S/o Late Indra Prasad 11. Mamta Devi 12. Rumi Kumari 13. Pinki Kumari 14. Guria Kumari -Daughters of late Indra Prasad -All residents of village Khaua, PO Jhauna, PS Awatar Nagar, Chapra, Saran….Defendants/Opp.party 2nd set ----------- 02- 30.7.2010 Heard Mr. Birendra Prasad Mishra for the petitioner, and Mr. Bashisth Narain Mishra for opposite party no.1. Defendant no.3 is the petitioner in this civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and challenges the order dated 10.1.2008, passed by the learned Munsif II, Chapra, in Title Suit No.30 of 2003, whereby his application for 2 permission to file the written statement has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that defendant no.3 (the present petitioner), his mother, his brother, and his sister are defendants in the suit. The suit registered progress. At a late stage, the present petitioner filed an application that he could not file his written statement because he was in jail on account of his involvement in a criminal case. He may, therefore, be permitted to file his written statement. The application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that he did not disclose as to the period during which he was in custody. His counsel in the criminal case is also the counsel for all the four family members including the present petitioner in the present suit who cross- examined the plaintiffs’ witnesses for and on behalf of the four persons. He filed this application much after the suit registered substantial progress. In that view of the matter, the learned trial court has held that it is not a bonafide application. We entirely agree with the view 3 taken by the learned trial court. It appears to be a delaying tactics. 3. This civil revision application is rejected. ( S K Katriar ) mrl