Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2004 passed by the learned SubJudgeI, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 306 of 2001, whereby the application of the petitioner dated 06.02.2004 filed for recall of the order dated 19.02.2003 debarring the petitioner from filing the written statement has been rejected.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that a suit for declaration of permanent injunction being Title Suit No. 306 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 2. Notices upon the defendants were issued on 16.01.2002. Pursuant to the notice, defendant no. 3/petitioner appeared in the suit proceeding on 04.02.2002, however, no written statement was filed. The plaintiff/respondent no. 2 and the defendant no. 3/petitioner filed a compromise petition on 18.01.2003. Subsequently, the plaintiff/respondent no. 2 pressed injunction petition which was dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2003. In the meantime, the petitioner was debarred from filing written statement on 19.02.2003. Thereafter, the case was fixed for order on compromise petition on several dates. On 29.08.2003, the respondent no. 2 prayed for debarring the petitioner from filing the written statement, however, no order was passed by the learned court below as the petitioner was already debarred from filing written statement vide order dated 19.02.2003. When the defendant came to know the said fact, he filed written statement on 13.11.2003 and also filed an application to recall the earlier order dated 19.02.2003 by which the petitioner was debarred from filing the written statement. However, the said application for recalling the order dated 19.02.2003 was dismissed by the learned SubJudgeI, Dhanbad vide order dated 12.05.2004 on the ground that the statutory period for filing the written statement has already lapsed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the parties had earlier intended to compromise the matter, the petitioner did not choose to file the written statement. When the compromise did not materialise between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2, he filed the written statement on 13.11.2003 and also filed an application to recall the earlier order dated 19.02.2003 by which he was debarred from filing the written statement. However, the learned court below rejected the petitioner's application to recall the order dated 19.02.2003 vide impugned order dated 12.05.2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below committed an error in not considering the fact that earlier the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 were taking steps for entering into a compromise and a compromise petition was also filed for the same. In view of the said fact, the impugned order dated 12.05.2004 passed by the learned SubJudgeI, Dhanbad may be setaside.;