D.N. Patel, J. - (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 4 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 12 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 12 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 20 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 17 July, 2006 and the valid services were made on these summons on 29 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. The petition is, hereby, allowed and disposed of, in view of the aforesaid directions.;