IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.59 of 2008 Muzaffar Hussain son of late Piru Mian resident of Mohalla Sheo Ganj Dehari on Sone PS Dehari Dist Rohtas Petitioner Versus 1. Fatma Bibi wife of Makhdum Hussain Piru Mian resident of Mohalla Neel Kothi, Dehari on Sone PS Dehari Dist Rohtas Plaintiff-Opposite party Ist set 2. Md Shafique 3.Md Shakil 4. Md Mahmood 5.Md Ibrahim All sons of late Piru Mian resident of Mohalla Sheo Ganj Dehari on Sone PS Dehari Dist Rohtas Defendants-Opposite Parties 2nd set -------------- 03/ 09.11.2009 I.A.No.6599 of 2009 has been filed on 15.10.2009 on behalf of the applicants for being substituted in place of the sole appellant- Muzaffar Hussain who is said to have died on 18.07.2009 leaving behind a widow and three sons as his heirs and legal representatives fully detailed in paragraph 3 of the Interlocutory application. The aforesaid interlocutory application is well within the statutory period of limitation is also accompanied by a death certificate and duly executed vakalatnama of the applicants. Accordingly, the said interlocutory application is allowed. Let the aforesaid heirs of the sole deceased appellant be substituted in his place. 2. This civil revision has been filed by one of the defendant-petitioner challenging order dated 08.10.2007 by which learned Munsif II, Sasaram rejected his application which was numbered as Misc. Case no. 33 of 2006 in Eviction Suit no.6 of 1995 for accepting his written statement filed on 11.01.2005. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- - 2 - opposite party Ist set for eviction of the defendants including the petitioner on various grounds and also for arrears of rent and other ancillary reliefs. The suit was decree ex parte on 29.06.1996 due to non-appearance of the defendants even after service of notice and summons. 4. Thereafter on 26.07.1996, the defendant petitioner filed Misc. case no. 57 of 1996 for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed by the learned Munsif II, Sasaram vide his judgment and dated 20.09.1999 permitting the petitioner to file his written statement in the learned court below. The said order was affirmed by this High court in CR no. 2477 of 1999. 5. It transpires that the suit was restored on 20.09.1999 and hence it was the duty of the defendant petitioner to immediately file his written statement if he wanted to contest the suit but no such written statement was filed for more than five years although admittedly the defendant petitioner had full knowledge and information about the pendency of the suit after its restoration at the instance of the defendant- petitioner himself. In the said circumstances filing of the written statement on 11.01.2005 by the defendant petitioner was clearly without any cogent or satisfactory reason and hence the learned court below was quite justified in passing the impugned order dated 08.10.2007 rejecting the same and also rejecting the application bearing Misc. case no.33 of 2006, which was filed by the defendant-petitioner for accepting written statement. 6. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned - 3 - order of the learned court below nor finds any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. However, since this civil revision arises out of an eviction suit and is pending for 14 years the learned court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit in accordance with law without any further delay so that it is decided expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)