- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by the Court of learned Munsif, Hazaribagh dated 14th January, 2011 in Title Suit No. 85 of 2004, below an application preferred by original defendant no. 2 for holding inquiry that earlier written statement dated 28th February, 2006 (Annexure -2) was never filed by defendant no. 2. This application was allowed by the trial court and fresh and new written application was allowed to be filed by original defendant no. 2, which was filed on 19/28th August, 2006 (Annexure -4) and against the said order, passed by the trial court, the present writ petition has been preferred.
(2.) HAVING heard 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 reason that the present petitioner has instituted Title Suit No. 85 of 2004, in which it has been alleged that original defendant no. 2 has already filed his written statement on 28th February, 2006 (Annexure2), but, it further appears from the facts of the case that when original defendant no. 2 came to know that somebody has already filed a. written statement on his behalf he appeared before the trial court and filed his correct written statement dated 19/28th August, 2006 (Annexure -4). It further appears from the facts of the case that an application was given by original defendant no. 2 on 21st January, 2009 for holding inquiry with a prayer to match the signature of original defendant no. 2 with the signature on the written statement dated 28th February, 2006. Thereafter, the trial court held the inquiry and several documents have also been examined by the trial court. Witnesses have also been examined with respect to the disputed signature and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences on record, the trial court has arrived at a conclusion that original defendant no. 2 ought to be permitted to file a written statement and pursuant thereto original defendant no. 2 had filed his written statement dated 19/28th August, 2006, which has been permitted to be taken on record. Looking to the evidences on record and the documents on record, no error has been committed by the trial court in allowing original defendant no. 2 to file his another written statement because the earlier one which is at Annexure -2 dated 28th February, 2006 was not filed by him.
(3.) IN view of these facts, there is no substance in this writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.;