Mostt. Ram Dulari Devi And ORS v. Manbaso Devi And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15244 of 2014 ====================================================== Mostt. Ram Dulari Devi & Ors .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

Manbaso Devi & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 04-02-2016 1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2.

At the time of hearing of this writ application on merit in admission matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that substitution application being I.A. No.985 of 2016 has been filed on 2.2.2016. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No.1 and 2 both have died and the legal representatives are there. The learned counsel for the respondent has got no objection if the legal representatives are substituted. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 and 2 are substituted.

3.

So far the merit of the writ application is concerned, this application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

Patna High Court CWJC No.15244 of 2014 (3) dt.04-02-2016 2/2 India for setting aside the order dated 22.05.2014 passed by Sub Judge V, Sasaram in Title Suit No.595 of 2000 whereby the Court below extended the time for accepting the cost of Rs.100/- directed to be paid by terms of order dated 5.2.2002. 4.

It appears that the defendants filed written statement in 2002 and because there was some delay in filing the written statement, application was filed before the Court below and the Court below accepted the filing written statement subject to payment to cost of Rs.100/-. Thereafter, the same could not be deposited on the ground stated by the defendants in the application. The Court below only extended time and directed the defendant to pay further cost of Rs.300/-.

5.

In view of the above position that the Court below has only extended time for depositing the cost that too after awarding further cost, the same cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, this writ application is dismissed. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/- U T