Patna High CourtC.Misc./1184/2016dismissed

Jai Narain Bhagat v. Ganesh Bhagat And ORS

2016-10-06Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo2 pages

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1184 of 2016 (2) dt.06-10-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1184 of 2016 ====================================================== Jai Narain Bhagat .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Ganesh Bhagat & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chandra Kant For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 06-10-2016 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Chandra Kant for the petitioner.

Perused the impugned order dated 31.08.2016 passed by Sub Judge IX, Siwan in Title Suit No.84 of 2006. It appears that in the suit, this petitioner appeared on 14.11.2006. When he did not file written statement within the period stipulated in C.P.C., by order dated 14.09.2007, he was debarred from filing the written statement. Subsequently, two years thereafter in April, 2009, written statement was filed with an application. Thereafter, he left the pairvi in the case and for the first time in 2014, filed the application for recall of the order dated 14.09.2007 whereby he was debarred from filing the written statement.

It is admitted fact that in November 2006, he appeared and then uptill 14.09.2007, he did not file written statement,

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1184 of 2016 (2) dt.06-10-2016 therefore, he was debarred. Then also he did not file the written statement. Written statement was filed after two years i.e. in April, 2009. Thereafter also, he left the pairvi on the ground that mother was murdered. This application for recall has been filed five years thereafter. It appears that the case has been posted for judgment. In such circumstances, in my opinion, in no case it can be said that the order passed by the Court below is contrary to the provision of law or that the Court below passed the order in the manner not permitted by law.

In my opinion, therefore, this is not a case for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous application is dismissed.

(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Saurabh/- U T