IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22047 of 2011 Baidyanath Sah Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 14.12.2011. At the very outset the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to correct the provision of law. Permission is accorded. The respondent No.1 is not necessary party. Therefore, his name is deleted. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Yogendra Mishra on behalf of the petitioner who is defendant No.1 in the court below. This application has been filed by the petitioner against a part of the order dated 25.10.2011 passed by Munsif, Sadar Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 122 of 1994 whereby observation has been made by the court below that the petitioner has no locus standi to point out the defects in the plaint of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the petitioner has not filed written statement then also he is entitled to take part in the proceeding of the suit and can cross-examine the witness that may be produced by the plaintiff or the defendant. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner filed the application in the court below pointing out various defects in the plaint 2 and also informing the court that the respondent No.5(e) namely Chandra Devi had died and also pointed out that no guardians have been appointed regarding minor defendants in the plaint. After hearing the parties the learned court below recorded a finding that the present petitioner appeared in the case in the year 1996 but still today he neither prayed for recall of the order whereby the suit has been directed to proceed ex parte nor he has filed any written statement and, therefore, he has got no locus standi to point out or file application and put hindrances in disposal of the suit. So far the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that he can cross- examine the witnesses that may be produced is a matter to be considered in future as still today no evidence has been produced by any parties. At this stage therefore, admittedly, the petitioner is not contesting the suit. No written statement has been filed by the present petitioner. In the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 the Apex Court has held that in the cases where the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 227 such exercise is entirely discretionary and no person can claim it as a matter of right. In the present case, as stated above neither the petitioner is contesting the suit nor he has filed any written 3 statement and only is filing the application and thereby putting hindrances in disposal of case. However, considering the information received from the petitioner the court below has directed the parties i.e. the plaintiff to make necessary pairvi regarding the death of respondent No.5(e) and also regarding the minor defendants. In such view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)