- (1.) PRESENT petition has been preferred against an order passed by Additional Sub JudgeII, Bokaro dated 29th of September, 2010 whereby the trial Court has accepted the written statement filed by the original defendant in Title Suit No.6 of 2007.
(2.) HAVING heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State and looking into the copy of the impugned order passed by Additional Sub JudgeII, Bokaro dated 29th September, 2010 in Title Suit No.6 of 2007, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, moreover, for the reason that the petitioner is an original plaintiff in Title Suit No.6 of 2007, in which with some delay of 135 days written statement was tendered by the original plaintiff and the same was accepted by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner (original plaintiff) has vehemently argued that anyway, on 18th June, 2007 trial Court had not accepted the written statement but the same was again tendered on 30th of November, 2007 and the same has been accepted to be as it may but the facts remains that orderVIII Rule1 C.P.C. is not mandatory in nature. The trial Court has all power and jurisdiction to accept the written statement even at a belated stage. In the facts of the present case, no prejudice has been caused to the original plaintiff by accepting the written statement by the trial Court filed by the original defendants with the delay of 135 days.
(3.) THERE is no substance in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.;