M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.5.2004 whereby the learned sub -Judge debarred the petitioner from filing the written statement. Plaintiff field Title Suit No. 33/01 in the Court of Sub -Judge, Koderma. After service of summons, defendant -petitioner appeared on 19.12.2001 and prayed for time for filing written statement. Thereafter, parties tried to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court but no settlement was arrived at. The Court below by order dated 7.1.2002 directed the petitioner to file written statement. From 7.1.2002 to 20.2.2004 for about two years, several adjournments were granted by the Court -below for filing written statement. Defendant -petitioner did not file written statement and consequently by order dated 20.4.2004 the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing. Even thereafter the written statement was not filed. By order dated 19.5.2004, petitioner was debarred from filing written statement. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner nor he filed written statement with a prayer to recall the order. In this way, petitioner failed to file written statement for about four years of his appearance in the suit.
(2.) LEARNED counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash V/s. Nanhku and Ors, 2005 4 SCC 480. In my considered opinion, the ratio decided by the Supreme Court cannot apply in such cases including the case in hand where the defendant failed to file written statement for about four years. For the aforesaid reason, I am not inclined to interfere; with the order. This writ petition is dismissed.;