IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No.505 of 2010
Paras Nath Sahu @ Paras Nath Sao ... Petitioner
Versus
Maini Devi Respondent
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHIL HARKAULI
------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: xxx
-----
03/01.04.2010
The petitioner is defendant No.4 in the suit. While the defendant No.1 to
3 appeared and filed written statement the defendant No.4 kept away.
According to the process server the defendant No.4 was properly served with
the summons.
At a later stage of the suit the petitioner appeared and sought time to file
a written statement which has been rejected by the trial Court vide impugned
order.
On 15.2.2010 while hearing this petition the following order was passed:
“02/15.02.2010 It has not been shown as to why the defendant No.1 to
3, who are brothers of the defendant No.4 and who had not only appeared in
the suit but also filed W.S. and were contesting the suit, would not inform their
brother, i.e. defendant No.4, who is petitioner in this case. Detailed
explanation of this fact is needed, failing which the petition would be liable to
be dismissed.
List this case after four weeks.”
A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated by
the petitioner that although the defendant No.4 and the defendants No.1 to 3
are family members but the petitioner is “residing separately at the same
locality.” No separate address is mentioned. It has not been stated since when
and why the petitioner started residing separately. On the other hand, the
impugned order mentions that when the application was filed before the trial
Court by the petitioner (defendant No.4) the defendants No.1 to 3 filed a
supporting rejoinder affidavit alleging that all these defendants i.e. including
defendant No.4 were living in joint family and the defendants No.1 to 3 have no
objection if the defendant No.4 is permitted to contest the suit.
Having regard to this state of affairs, I am not inclined to believe the plea
of the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit. It appears to the a dilatory
tactics.
Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli, J.)
NKC