Amarnath Thakur Andanr vs. Kumar Nath Thakur& Ors.
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo
Listed On:
3 Oct 2017
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8988 of 2012
| Amarnath Thakur & Anr | ====================================================== | |
|---|---|---|
| Kumar Nath Thakur & Ors | <br>Petitioner/s<br>Versus<br>Respondent/s | |
| Appearance :<br>For the Petitioner/s<br>For the Respondent/s | :<br>: | ======================================================<br>Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary<br>====================================================== |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER
7 03-10-2017 Heard learned counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Mritunjai Kumar for plaintiff-respondent no.1.
- The learned counsel Mr. Choudhary on behalf of the defendants-petitioners submitted that there is some delay in filing the written statement but the written statement has already been filed in the year 2008. The plaintiff-respondent's suit for partition was dismissed for default prior to filing the written statement but after restoration of the partition suit without notice to the defendants, the learned trial court refused to accept the written statement filed by the petitioners in the year 2008 by the impugned order of the year 2010. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners shall be greatly prejudiced if they are debarred from contesting the partition suit because of poverty and because of the fact that the petitioners are rustic villagers, there
2
was delay in filing the written statement.
-
The learned counsel for the respondent admitted the fact that the plaintiff-respondent is also a poor poojari.
-
In view of the above facts submitted by the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that the parties are very poor poojaries and do not know the law and because of their advice the written statement could not be filed within the prescribed period. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, if the impugned order is allowed to stand, the petitioners may not be able to protect their interest in the partition suit and, therefore, it will occasion failure of justice. However, at the same time it can be said that there is some laches on the part of the petitioners.
-
Thus, this writ application is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the written statement filed by the defendantspetitioners is hereby accepted subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand) to be paid by the petitioners to the plaintiff-respondent in the lower court within one month from today.
Harish/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)
