IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.483 of 2006 CHAUDHARY IMTEYAZ HUSSAIN & OR Versus HAZARI SINGH & ORS ----------- 6 29.07.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In view of the statements made in I.A. no. 1337/2006 the delay in filing of the Civil Revision Application is condoned. On merits, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for taking their written statement on record in purported exercise of powers under Order VIII Rule 1, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The suit was filed in the year, 2002, the defendant petitioners appeared in the suit on 7.7.2003 and after more than two years they had filed their written statement only on 22.9.2005. Counsel for the petitioners, however, while basically confining his submission on the interest of justice would also refer to an application filed by the petitioner on 3.12.2004 wherein it was mentioned that for filing of written statement, certain documents had to be perused by the petitioners. It is true that no order was passed on such application but then by that time the Court below had already passed the order dated 5.8.2004 debarring the petitioners from filing their written statement. That however, will not be the end of the matter. From the records, it is found that the suit is for declaration of right tile and interest in respect of 96 decimals of land in which the petitioners are the main contesting parties as other - 2 - defendants are sailing on the same boat along with the plaintiffs. In such a situation, debarring the petitioners from filing of their written statement therefore would amount to depriving them of an opportunity of contesting the suit itself. Thus in the interest of justice, this Court would allow the prayer of the petitioners subject to the condition that the petitioners must pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) by way of cost to compensate the loss sustained by the plaintiff. Such cost must be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the petitioners produce proof of such payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiffs before the Court below the Court below would accept the written statement already filed by the petitioners and allow them to contest the suit on merit. In the event, such cost as directed above is not paid by the petitioners, the written statement of the petitioners would not be taken into consideration and the suit would proceed in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)