- (1.) The present writ petition has been under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by learned Sub?Judge, VI, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 17 of 2001 dated 2nd December, 2010, below an application given by the Petitioner (original Plaintiff) on 3rd September, 2010 for recalling the order dated 18th March, 2005, which has been rejected by the trial court on 2nd December, 2010. Initially, an application was preferred by the Respondent (original Defendant) on 31st January, 2003 to make counter claim in his written statement. Thus, against the order of rejection of recalling application, the present writ petition has been preferred.
(2.) Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and circumstances:? (i) The Petitioner is an original Plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 17 of 2001 before the court of learned Sub?Judge, VI, Jamshedpur. (ii) It appears from the facts of the case that the Respondent (original Defendant) had filed his written statement to make his counter claim on 31st January, 2003. (iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the Petitioner (original Plaintiff) had preferred an application earlier also for allowing him to file written statement against the counter claim, made by the Respondent (original Defendant). This application was not pressed at that time, by the Petitioner (original Plaintiff) and it was disposed of, as such, vide order dated 18th March, 2005. (iv) It also appears that this order was never challenged before any further higher forum and it has attained its finality. (v) Thereafter, the original Plaintiff did nothing between 2005 and 2010 and now, after long lapse of time, gave an application for recalling the order dated 18th March, 2005 on 3rd September, 2010. (vi) The application preferred by the Petitioner (original Plaintiff) has been rightly rejected by the trial court. (vii) Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, it appears that there is a long lapse of time from the earlier order i.e. of 2005. Moreover, no proper explanation is coming out, from the Petitioner (original Plaintiff) for long delay of 5 years. Moreover, whole evidence in Title Suit No. 17 of 2001 is already laid before the trial court and it is fairly submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that even final argument in Title Suit No. 17 of 2001 has already been over.
(3.) As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. No error has been committed by the trial court in rejecting the application preferred by the present Petitioner (original Plaintiff). There is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;