IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.212 of 2008 Sundar Mandal son of late Bilat Mandal, of village Bhawanipur, P.S. & Anchal Parihar, District Sitamarhi. …..Defendant 3rd party-Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Kamla Devi @ Savitri Devi wife of late Bisheshwar Prasad Gupta, at Bhandipur Bazar, Sitmarhi Town, Ward No.13 P.S. & District Sitamarhi ………Plaintiff-Opposite party 1st set 2. The Collector, District Sitmarhi. ……..Defendant 1st party-Opposite party 2nd set. 3. Circle Officer, Circle Office Parihar, District Sitamarhi. ….Defendant 2nd party-Opposite party 3rd set. For the petitioner : Mr. Nawal Kishor Prasad, Advocate. For the opposite parties : None. ----------- 02/ 08.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by defendant 3rd party-petitioner challenging order dated 11.12.2007 by which the learned Munsif Sadar, Sitamarhi rejected his written statement dated 19.11.2007 filed in Title Suit No.21 of 2000. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff- opposite party no.1 for declaration of her title and confirmation of possession and for other ancillary reliefs. It transpires that other defendants filed their written statements but defendant 3rd party- petitioner, although appeared in the suit on 17.11.2000, did not file any written statement and hence vide order dated 05.06.2007 he was debarred from filing his written statement. 4. It transpires that after five months thereafter the defendant-petitioner filed his written statement on 19.11.2007 and requested the court to accept the same which was rejected by the 2 learned court below vide its order dated 11.12.2007 against which the instant civil revision has been filed. 5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently challenges the said order of the learned court below, but it is quite apparent that defendant-petitioner appeared in suit in the year 2000 and for about seven years did not take any step for filing his written statement and hence was debarred from filing any written statement vide order dated 05.06.2007. The said order was never challenged in any manner whatsoever. Furthermore after more than five months from the said order defendant- petitioner filed written statement on 19.11.2007 i.e. much beyond the period of 90 days prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. The grounds mentioned by the defendant-petitioner for such a long delay also taken in the petition, is that he entrusted his case to his pairvikar who did not inform him about the development and due to absence of knowledge the delay had been caused. This ground taken by the petitioner does not appear to be convincing or reliable as when he had appeared in the suit in the year 2000, he should have immediately thereafter filed his written statement and there was no occasion for him to wait for such a long period. 7. It is further apparent that in the meantime the provision of Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended in the year 2002, but no heed was paid 3 thereto and even then no step for filing written statement was taken. Hence learned court below was quite justified in debarring the defendant-petitioner from filing his written statement. In this connection reference may be made to decisions of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Smt. Sunita Devi & Ors. vs. Abdhesh Kumar Sinha @ Kamleshwari Pd. Sinha & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) PLJR 482 as well as in case of Kailash vs. Nanhku and ors., reported in 2005 (3) PLJR (SC) 241, which shows that in such circumstances no indulgence should be expected from the trial court as the said dilatory attitude was meant only to delay the disposal of the suit which cannot be legally allowed. 8. In the said 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. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )