IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14282 of 2010
Awadesh Prasad
Versus
Om Prakash Prasad & Ors
----------------------
02/ 22.09.2011 Heard Mr. Gyanand Shukla, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner.
The writ petition has been field for quashing the order
dated 1.6.2010 passed by the Sub-Judge Ist, Bettiah, West
Champaran in Partition Suit No. 5 of 1999, whereunder the learned
court below has debarred the defendant-petitioner from filing his
written statement.
Brief facts of the matter is that the partition suit was
filed by the respondent no. 1 giving rise to Partition Suit No. 5 of
1999 seeking 1/6th share in the property. The defendant-petitioner
did appear in the case. The parties to the suit proceedings filed a
compromise petition on 12.7.2001. It is the case of the petitioner
that even while the said compromise petition filed by the petitioner
and the plaintiff respondent no. 1 remained pending without any
final order being passed thereon, an order was passed on 10.1.2003
debarring the petitioner from filing written statement. The
defendant-petitioner soon thereafter filed a written statement on
22.1.2003 and also filed an application for recall of the order dated
10.1.2003. The said petition was rejected by the court below on
15.5.2008, inter alia, on grounds of there being absence of sufficient
reason for making the said prayer. The petitioner filed a second
petition after removing the said deficiency and provided the reason
2
under which he was delayed in filing the written statement and
which petition filed on 9.8.2008 has been rejected by the impugned
order dated 1.6.2010. The petitioner thus is aggrieved not only by
the order dated 1.6.2010, whereby the second application for recall
of the order dated 10.1.2003 has been rejected but also by the
earlier order rejecting such prayer passed on 15.5.2008 as also the
order dated 10.1.2003 debarring the defendant-petitioner from filing
written statement.
Considering the circumstances that the order dated
10.1.2003 and the order dated 15.5.2008 have not been challenged
in the present proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
permission to challenge the same by filing an interlocutory
application. He may do so.
As prayed, put up on 20.10.2011 retaining its position.
(Jyoti Saran, J.)
S.Sb/-