IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.605 of 2007 ---- 1. Baleshwar Pandey 2. Janardan Pandey Both sons of Late Ludai Pandey Resident of Village-Sukhet, Tole-Bishaul, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani. --Defendants- Petitioners. Versus 1. Rajendra Pandey S/o Late Ludai Pandey Resident of Village-Sukhet, Tole- Bishaul, P.S.-Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani. -- Plaintiff-Opposite 1st Party. 2. Ganesh Pandey 3. Umesh Pandey Both sons of Janardan Pandey Resident of Village-Sukhet, Tola Bishaul, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani. -- Defendant 1st Party-Opposite Party 2nd party. 4. Rahul Pandey 5. Vikram Pandey Both sons of Baleshwar Pandey Resident of Village-Sukhet, Tole- Bishaul, P.S.Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani. -- Defendants 2nd party-Opposite Party 3rd Party. ---- For the petitioners : Mr. Murari Nr. Chaudhary with Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocates. For the opposite parties : None. ---- ----------- 02. 07.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision has been filed by two of the defendants-petitioners challenging order dated 20.02.2007 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Jhanjharpur refused to accept the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants-petitioners in Partition Suit No.06 of 2005. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff- - 2 - opposite party no.1 after coming into force of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for partition of his share in the suit land and for other ancillary reliefs. In the said suit, notices were sent to the defendants-petitioners which were received by them, but they could not disclose the date on which they received the notices. 4. However, according to their own case, the defendants-petitioners appeared in the suit on 18.05.2006, but for more than six and half months they did not take any step for filing their written statement and only on 04.12.2006, the defendants- petitioners filed their written statement along with an application for condoning the delay and accepting the written statement. The said application has been rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 20.02.2007 which is under challenge in the instant civil revision. 5. The amended provision of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code specifically provides that the defendant shall within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. 6. In the instant case not only from the date of service - 3 - of summons, but even from the date of appearance of defendants- petitioners in the suit, as many as about 200 days had lapsed and only thereafter the written statement was filed. Furthermore, the learned court below was very careful in considering the reasons for delay, i.e. ailment mentioned by the defendants, and found that the medical certificates and prescriptions were for the period between 24.04.2004 to 27.02.2006 and the medical certificate dated 11.12.2006 disclosed that defendant no.1 was ill from 22.11.2006 to 10.12.2006, i.e. for 18 days only. Hence, obviously, there was no valid explanation for such a long delay. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this court in case of Smt. Sunita Devi & Ors. Vs. Abdhesh Kumar Sinha @ Kamleshwari Pd. Sinha & Ors, reported in 2005(2) P.L.J.R.482. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the learned court below, nor does it find any jurisdictional error therein. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)