Anil Kumar &Amp; Anr vs Pawan Kumar &Amp; Ors on 28 April, 2011

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                           CWJC No.12978 of 2010
          1. ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE HAZARI PRASAD BHAGAT R/O MOH.-
          RAJEEV NAGAR,P.S.-PATLIPUTRA,DIST.-PATNA.
          2.   M/S     AJANTA    NIKETAN     SAHKARI      GRIH   NIRMAN
          SAMITI,LTD.HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NEHRU NAGAR P.S.-
          PATLIPUTRA DIST.-PATNA,THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ANIL
          KUMAR
                                Versus
          1. PAWAN KUMAR S/O LATE NAND LAL MEHTA R/O MOH.-
          DIGHA BUZURG (KURJI),P.S.-DIGHA,DIST.-PATNA.
          2. RAVI RANJAN S/O LATE NAND LAL MEHTA R/O MOH.-DIGHA
          BUZURG (KURJI),P.S.-DIGHA,DIST.-PATNA.
          3. SMT RADHA DEVI W/O LATE NAND LAL MEHTA R/O MOH.-
          DIGHA BUZURG (KURJI),P.S.-DIGHA,DIST.-PATNA.
          4. SMT MADHU MANJARI W/O CHHOTELAL MEHTA R/O MOH.-
          DIGHA BUZURG (KURJI),P.S.-DIGHA,DIST.-PATNA.
          5. SMT.REKHA DEVI W/O SRI MANOJ KUMAR R/O MOH.-DIGHA
          BUZURG (KURJI),P.S.-DIGHA,DIST.-PATNA.
          6. SRI RAJANI KANT RAJ SHARMA S/O LATE KAPIL DEV RAI R/O
          MOH.-RAJEEV NAGAR ,P.S.-PATLIPUTRA,DIST.-PATNA.
          7. SATISH KUMAR         S/O SHAILENDRA KUMAR PRASAD
          ,SECRETARY OF GHAR SANSAR SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN
          SAMITI,PATNA.       R/O      MOH.-RAJEEV            NAGAR,P.S.-
          PATLIPUTRA,DIST.-PATNA.
          8. SATYA NARAIN SINGH              S/O LATE JIO NANDAN
          SINGH,SECRETARY OF NIRALA SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN
          SAMITI,PATNA.    R/O   MOH.-NIRALA        CO-OPERATIVE,RAJEEV
          NAGAR,P.S.-PATLIPUTRA,DIST.-PATNA.
                                         -----------

02. 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners are the defendant aggrieved by

the order dated 1.4.2010, rejecting his application under

Order 7 Rule 11 Cr.P.C. seeking dismissal of the plaint.

The Suit is of the year 1999. The petitioner filed

his written statement on 21.8.2002. He then proceeded to

file the application under Order 7 Rule 11 on 16.4.2009.

The impugned order is based on cogent and justified

reasons that the petitioners were unable to explain the
2

long delay of seven years in preferring the application when

the grounds were available to them all along. The Court

finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order which

is otherwise well reasoned and discussed.

The application stands dismissed.

P.K                                   ( Navin Sinha, J.)