IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.141 of 2009 1.Ataur Rahman , Son of Late Haji Habibul Hasnain, R/o Village- Quazi Chak, P.S.-Sahebganj, P.O. Kurnor Munsif West, District-Muzaffarpur. 2.Mahmudul Hassan, Son of Late Syed Azizul Hasnain, R/o Mutwali, Khankah Azizia Quazi Chak, P.O. Karnor, P.S.Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur-Defendant(Petitioners) Versus 1.Atiquar Rahman , Son of Late Haji Habibul Hasnain, R/o Village- Quazi Chak, P.S.-Sahebganj, P.O. Kurno, Anchal Block, Sahebganj,Registry Office Paroo Munsif West, District-Muzaffarpur. ----------Plaintiff. 2. Motiur Rahman, Son of Late Haji Habibul Hasnain. 3.Fazhur Rahman Son of Late Haji Habibul Hasnain, R/o Village- Quazi Chak, P.S.-Sahebganj, P.O. Kurnor Munsif West, District-Muzaffarpur. 4.Raheya Khatoon, D/o Son of Late Haji Habibul Hasnain, R/o Village- Quazi Chak, P.S.-Sahebganj, P.O. Kurnor Munsif West, District-Muzaffarpur. ----------(Defendant)-Opposite Party. ----------- 4. 26.09.2011 Heard Mr. S. Jamil Akhtar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Purushotam Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. No body has appeared on behalf of opposite 2 party no.1.on whom the notices had been issued and validly served. 1. There is no dispute that the Partition Suit No.562/2006 has been filed by the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 for partition of the suit properties in which the petitioners and opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are defendants. However, the court below has refused to accept the written statements of the petitioners on the ground of delay in filing the same. 2. Both the learned counsels have jointly pointed out that earlier another civil revision application bearing C.R.No.2103/2008 arising out of the same suit had been disposed of by this Court by order dated 19.12.2008 and the written statement of defendant/petitioner of that civil revision application was directed to be accepted subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-to the plaintiff. The learned counsels have submitted that this civil revision application may also be disposed of on similar lines in order to expedite the disposal of the partition suit in the court below. 3. There is no material before this Court to take an inconsistent view. In view of the aforesaid facts and the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of 3 the petitioners as well as the opp. party nos.2 and 3, this civil revision application is disposed of directing the court below to accept the written statement of the petitioners, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff which must be done on the next date fixed in the suit after the receipt/production of this order in the court below. As the partition suit is pending since 2006, the court below is directed to expedite its proceeding without granting unnecessary adjournments to the parties and to dispose of the same preferably within nine months. The payment shall be made either directly to the plaintiff and the receipt be filed in the court below or by depositing the same in the court below which shall allow the prayer of the plaintiff to withdraw the same. 4. The parties appearing in this civil revision application are in agreement for disposal of this civil revision application at this stage itself with the observations and directions made above. 5. This civil revision application is, accordingly, disposed of. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)