IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1881 of 2007 JAGDISH PRASAD PASWAN & ORS Versus SMT.TAKIA SULTAN BEGUM & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the O.P. Ist Set : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Faiz Ahmad, Advocate For the O.P. No. 21(b): Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate ----------- 3/ 12.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The suit was filed in the year 1981 by late S. Farzand Ali and he died in the year 1986 and was substituted by his legal representatives. The petitioners appeared in 1984 and do dispute that the defendants filed their respective written statements. As may appear from the order impugned herein that if they did not attempt in stating certain facts specifically, the defendants also could not set up any specific plea. The parties adduced their evidence. They addressed the court at the stage of argument also and after twenty three years, the suit was fixed for delivering judgment whereafter the petitioners filed Annexure 1, a petition seeking amendment in the written statement. That petition was dismissed by a reasoned order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge II, Patna in Title Suit No. 153 of 1981. There has been many rounds of litigation in this court also; one such litigation being through Civil Revision No. 2133 of 2000 disposed of on 21.8.2001. The Hon’ble Judge who passed that particular order in the above noted Civil Revision petition filed for almost similar grievance, made following observation while dismissing the same : “In my view, therefore, the trial court was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order and has rightly - 2 - rejected the petitioner’s prayer to file written statement. There is no error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. In fact, allowing the present revision application would result in grave miscarriage of justice to the other parties who feel obstructed by the delaying tactics of the petitioners. In the result, this revision application is rejected. The trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit most expeditiously. In fact, he is answerable for the delay that has occurred ever since the last witness was examined in the suit.” As may appear from the above observation of this court, the Hon’ble Judge, passing the aforementioned order, was reminding the lower court that it could be answerable for the delay occurred in disposal of the suit. But, what appears in the present circumstance is that the court is put to a pitiable condition by the litigant on account of being confronted with the petition as contained in Annexure 1, after twenty three years of litigation and the case being posted for judgment. I have perused the contents of Annexure 1 and I find that the petitioners wanted to make new statements in answer to certain allegations of facts by the plaintiff in different paragraphs of their plaint and as such, was attempting to re-create a new case in their defence. It appears that the amendment petition has been filed attempting to create new facts. If it is mainly aimed at delaying the disposal of the suit, then one has to be very harsh on such attempts. Other angle from which I see the attempt, is that after twenty three years the petitioners could not remind themselves that there were certain facts which were necessary to be brought on record and should be brought as clearly as possible so that other side is not jumped a - 3 - surprise. Learned counsel for the petitioner advances a submission that if the plaintiffs’ legal representative were jumped a surprise upon them, then court below was prudent enough to give opportunity to them to lead rebuttal evidence to any evidence which could be led by either of the sides. It could not be a case of jumping a surprise by a particular party upon his adversary. The court is alive to the earlier order passed by it reminding itself that it is the duty of this court to ensure that the suit is disposed of without further delay. Accordingly, I dismiss this Civil Revision application with a direction to the court below to take up hearing argument in the case on day to day basis and conclude the same by 15th June, 2009 so as to deliver the judgment in last week of June, 2009 itself. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)