NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 26.3.2004 passed by the Munsif, Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 9/2000 whereby the petitioners have been debarred from filing the written statement.
(2.) FROM perusal of the order it appears that the petitioners had appeared in the suit on 21.2.2000 and since thereafter dates were given for filing the written statement but for years written statement was not filed. By order dated 26.3.2004 the Court below ultimately passed the order debarring the defendants from filing the written statement. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for recalling the said order dated 26.3.2004. The Court below again considered the petition and found that more than sufficient opportunity was given to the defendants but they did not file the written statement and intentionally delayed the proceeding of the suit. The Court thus refused to recall the order dated 26.3.2004. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that after filing the suit, the plaintiff hastened to file a petition for grant of temporary injunction. The defendants filed their show cause reply and thereafter the injunction matter was hotly contested and fought up to this Court. Ultimately an order was passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, directing the Court below to conclude the suit within four months. Learned counsel submitted that since thereafter the parties actually adverted to the main suit and the petitioners in that view could not get sufficient opportunity to file their written statement. The petitioners, however; filed the written statement on 22.4.2004. According to the learned counsel there was no wilful delay on the part of the petitioners as has been wrongly observed by the learned Court below. In the circumstances of the case the learned Court below should not have debarred the petitioners from filing the written statement and should have accepted the written statement already filed by recalling the earlier order. Learned counsel further submitted that he has already disclosed his line of defence in the show cause reply filed in the injunction matter and therefore the plaintiff will not prejudiced if the written statement filed at this stage is accepted.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties and perusing the records, I find that the Court below has considered all the aspects and the points which have been raised in this petition and has come to the conclusion that the defendants were given more than sufficient opportunity to file their written statement and that there was intentional delay on the part of the defendants in not filing the written statement for years. There is, thus, no illegality in debarring the petitioner from filing their written statement or in passing the impugned order. So far as the acceptance of the show cause reply as the written statement is concerned, which was admittedly filed at the initial stage of the suit, the petitioners may file an application before the Court below to treat the same, also as their defence in the suit and the Court below may consider the same and pass an appropriate order.;