IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1227 of 2005 SHREE NARAYAN SINGH SON OF LATE RAGHUBAR NARAYAN SINGH, MANAGING TRUSTEE OF RAI BAHADUR DALIP NARAYAN SINGH TRUST ESTATE, MUNGER, RESIDENT OF DALIP MAHAL, MOHALLA PURABSARAI, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- MUNGER – PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NITYANAND YADAV, SON OF LATE KARE LAL YADAV. 3. ASHA DEVI, WIFE OF AJAY RAI, DAUGHTER OF LATE KARE LAL YADAV. BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- SHANKARPUR, P.O. SHANKARPUR, P.S. MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- MUNGER, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT SWEET PLACE, NEAR ASHOK STHAMBH, SHRAWAN BAZAR, P.S. KOTWALI, POST AND DISTRICT- MUNGER. – RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2/ 06-05-2011 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition questioning the validity of order dated 05.10.2004 (Annexure-3) passed in Title Suit No. 34 of 1997 by learned Sub-Judge 2nd, Munger, whereby petitioner has been directed to provide Hindi translation of an affidavit filed on his behalf in terms of Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure ( In short C.P.C.). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner had filed his affidavit in English, then under the mandate of Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C., he was not required to give Hindi version of such affidavit and, according to him, to that extent order passed by learned court below is not sustainable in the eye of law. He has also placed reliance on Rule 13 of Civil Court Rules, which provides for filing the petitions /applications/affidavits etc. in language of the court 2 or in English. 4. Learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the entire writ petition is based on a purely technical ground. Since the petitioner had already filed an affidavit in English, there was no harm in giving Hindi translation of the said affidavit for the benefit of the other side, so that examination of petitioner could have been recorded in the title suit instituted as far back as in the year 1997. Learned standing counsel further submits that even according to Rule 13 of the Civil Court Rules, such petitions/affidavits etc. are required to be filed in the language of the court as far as practicable, or in English. According to him, whole object of Rule 13 of the Civil Court Rules is that such affidavit/petition etc. filed by the parties should be easily understandable to the other side, so that the proceedings are disposed of smoothly. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that against the impugned order dated 05.10.2004, C.R. No. 1686 of 2004 was filed and that was heard and dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 15.12.2004 (Annexure-4). 5. In the given facts of the case, this Court does not find any good ground for interfering with the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. BTiwary/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)