IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 450 of 2008
Prahlad Pandit ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Kaleshwar Pandit
2. Baleshwar Pandit
3. Narayan Pandit
4. Hari Lal Pandit
5. Binda Devi
6. Shila Devi
7. Jhalku Pandit
8. Shanker Pandit
9. Dashrath Pandit
10. Mosomat. Jahari Devi ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1-4 : Mr. Pramod Kr. Jha, Advocate
———
th
10/ Dated: 12 March, 2010
1. Present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the order passed by learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Deoghar
dated 4th October, 2007 in Title (P) Suit No. 27 of 2006, whereby, the present
petitioner, who is the original defendant no. 1 whose written statement has not
been accepted by the trial court and, therefore, the present petition has been
preferred.
2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case, it appears that:-
(i) The present respondent nos. 1 to 6 are the substituted plaintiffs in the
Title (P) Suit No. 27 of 2006 and the present petitioner is the original
defendant no. 1.
(ii) It appears that the claim of the plaintiffs is that a registered deed
of family settlement, which has taken place on 12th October, 2004 is null
and void and for that declaration and also for confirmation of the
possession of the suit property, the suit has been filed.
(iii) It also appears that the defendant no. 1 has entered into a registered
deed of family settlement with the original defendant nos. 7 to 10 dated
12th October, 2004, which is under challenge in the Title (P) Suit No. 27 of
2006. The defendant no. 1 had filed his appearance in the Title (P) Suit
No. 27 of 2006 on 20th January, 2007 and on the very same day, written
statement was tendered, but, the same has not been accepted.
(iv) It appears that there is no much delay in filing of the written
statement. This aspect of the matter has not been properly
appreciated by the learned Subordinate Judge-VII, Deoghar. In view
of these facts and also looking to the facts and circumstances of the
case, it appears that written statement will be necessary for the trial
court in arriving at a correct conclusion of the disputes between
the parties. The defendant no. 1 has entered into a registered deed of
family settlement, which is under challenge in the Title (P) Suit No.
27 of 2006. Thus, without written statement, the trial court may not
come to the proper conclusion to the disputes between the parties,
I therefore, allow the petitioner (original defendant no. 1) to file his
written statement, which he has tendered to the trial court, will be
taken on record. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 1 to 4 (original plaintiffs) that the summons were
issued on 17th July, 2006 and the valid services were made on these
summons on 29th August, 2006. Thus, highest it can be said that
there is some delay for the month of September, October, November
and December and, therefore, I hereby impose a cost of Rs. 1,000/-
(Rupees one thousand only) upon the petitioner(original defendant
no. 1). This amount will be deposited by the petitioner (original
defendant no. 1) before the trial court, which will be permitted to be
withdrawn by the substituted plaintiffs upon proper application and
proper identification. This amount will be deposited within a period
of four weeks from today. On this condition, the written statement
is permitted to be filed.
3. The petition is, hereby, allowed and disposed of, in view of the
aforesaid directions.
(D.N. Patel, J)
Ajay/