Patna High Court
Ram Subhag Yadav vs Ram Nagina Tiwari on 6 February, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.966 of 2017
======================================================
Ram Subhag Yadav Son of Late Ram Autar Yadav, resident of Village
Bhagjoya, P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.1. Nirmal Kumar, Son of late Ram Nagina Tiwari, Resident of Village-Milki,
P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna.
2.1. Arun Kumari Tiwari, Son of late Sita Ram Tiwari, Resident of Village-
Milki, P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna.
2.2. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Son of late Sita Ram Tiwari, Resident of Village-Milki,
P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna.
2.3. Nirbhay Kumar Tiwari, Son of late Sita Ram Tiwari, Resident of Village-
Milki, P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna.
3. Smt. Radhika Devi, Wife of Late Awadh Bihari Tiwari,
4. Anandi Tiwari, son of Awadh Bihari Tiwari.
5. Pawan Tiwari, son of Awadh Bihari Tiwari.
6. Rajani Devi, Wife of Anjani Tiwary,
7. Raushan Tiwari,
8. Shivan Tiwari,
9. Aashish Tiwari, 7 to 9 are Sons of Anjani Tiwari, All are resident of Village
Milki P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna.
10. Sabitri Devi, Wife of Rishideo Tiwari.
11. Birendra Tiwari,
12. Jitendra Tiwari,
13. Raj Kishor Tiwari, 11 to 13 are Sons of Rishideo Tiwari.
14. Chandrama Tiwari.
15. Sudarshan Tiwari, 14 & 15 are Sons of Ram Kishun Tiwari.
16. Narmadeshwar Tiwari, Son of Late Pyare Tiwari, 10 to 16 are resident of
Village Milki P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna.
17. Sri Kant Yadav,
18. Sita Ram Yadav, Both Sons of Late Madho Yadav.
19. Chandeshwari Devi, Daughter of Late Madho Yadav.
20. Jitendra Yadav, Son of late Bhagwan Yadav.
21. Ram Prasad Yadav, son of late Jadhu Yadav.
22. Most. Jhunia Devi, Wife of Late Ram Deep Yadav.
23. Dildar Yadav,
24. Sonu Yadav.
25. Chhotu Yadav, 23 to 25 are sons of late Ramdeep Yadav.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.966 of 2017 dt.06-02-2025
2/6
26. Sahja Yadav, Son of Late Jagdish Yadav.
27. Manoj Yadav, Son of Late Sakaldip Yadav.
28. Ram Das Yadav, Son of Late Baleshwar Yadav.
29. Ram Prawesh Yadav.
30. Ram Ishwar Yadav,
31. Ram Lakhan Yadav, 29 to 31 are sons of Late Radhey Yadav.
32. Most. Meena Devi, Wife of Ram Raj Yadav.
33. Bittu Kumar Yadav @ Vishal Kumar Yadav, Son of Ram Raj Yadav.
34. Pummi Kumari, Daughter of Ram Raj Yadav,
35. Binod Kumar,
36. Bineshwar Yadav.
37. Awadhesh Yadav, 35 to 37 are Sons of Late Shivmohan Yadav.
38. Chinta Devi, Wife of Late Ramjee Yadav.
39. Bhism Yadav,
40. Akhilesh Yadav, Both sons of Late Ramjee Yadav.
41. Krishna Yadav, Son of Late Jag Mohan Yadav.
42. Teja Yadav, Son of Suryanath Yadav.
43. Tunnu Yadav.
44. Sachida Yadav.
45. Jitendra Yadav, 43 to 45 are sons of Late Ram Babu Yadav, 17 to 45 are
residents of village Bhagjoya, P.S. Paliganj, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Devi Das Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-02-2025
Present learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the
respondents.
3. The present petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 17.02.2017 passed in Title Suit No. 201 of 2001 by
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.966 of 2017 dt.06-02-2025
3/6
the learned Sub Judge, Paliganj whereby and whereunder the
petition dated 03.01.2017 filed by the defendant no.
14/petitioner for condoning the delay and accepting his written
statement has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
plaintiff/ respondents 1st set have filed the suit for partition and
after summons the defendant no. 14/petitioner appeared in the
suit on 06.06.2002. Though a number of opportunities were
given to the petitioner for filing his written statement, the same
could not be filed within the time granted for the said purpose.
As the learned counsel did not properly advise the petitioner for
filing the written statement within time, the petitioner was
debarred from filing his written statement. Learned counsel
further submits that moreover, the learned counsel for the
petitioner before the learned trial court left the pairvi which was
not in the knowledge of the petitioner and for this reason also,
the written statement could not be filed. Learned counsel further
submits that certain documents were also not available with the
petitioner after obtaining those documents, the petitioner
approached the Court for filing written statement and filed his
written statement along with the limitation petition on
03.01.2017
but the learned trial court refused to accept the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.966 of 2017 dt.06-02-2025
written statement and rejected the petition filed by the petitioner.
The learned counsel reiterates that the petitioner had already
appeared in the suit and has been contesting the case but he had
no knowledge about leaving of pairvi by his counsel and his
counsel never informed the petitioner for filing the written
statement. Further due to lack of relevant documents in support
of case, written statement could not be filed within the time
granted by the learned trial court. Learned counsel refers to the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s R.N. Jadi
& Brother & Ors. Vs. Subhashchandra reported in 2007(4)
PLJR 106(SC) and submits that the filing of written statement is
part of procedural law and the procedures are to be adopted in
order to further the cause of justice. No party should ordinarily
be denied participation in the process of justice dispensation
unless compelled by specific provisions of the statue. Learned
counsel further submits that in the same suit, the defendant nos.
11, 11(A) and 11(B) also filed a petition on 16.02.2016 for
acceptance of their written statement which was allowed by the
learned trial court vide order dated 14.11.2016 and 23.11.2016
respectively, and their written statement was accepted. Learned
counsel further submits that there was no deliberate delay or
latches on the part of the petitioner in filing the written
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.966 of 2017 dt.06-02-2025
statement rather the same has been filed after obtaining the
entire relevant documents and the learned trial court should
have accepted the same for the ends of justice. Hence, the
impugned order is not sustainable and same needs interference
by this Court.
5. Having regard to the submission made on behalf of
the petitioner and on perusal of the record, I do not find much
merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is evident from the impugned order that the petitioner
appeared before the learned trial court on 06.06.2002 and sought
time for filing the written statement. Thereafter, a number of
opportunities were given to him but he did not file the written
statement. Ultimately, on 21.04.2007 a fine of Rs.100 was
imposed but even then the petitioner neither filed the written
statement not paid the fine. The evidence of the plaintiff has
been completed and thereafter, the petitioner appeared after 15
years and filed the petition for taking his written statement on
record. There is gross negligence and willful disobedience of the
orders of the learned trial court by the petitioner. Even the
grounds taken by the petitioner do not appear to be sustainable
to this Court. The petitioner has been taking the ground that
firstly, the written statement could not be filed due to latches on
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.966 of 2017 dt.06-02-2025
part of the learned counsel who represented the petitioner before
the learned trial court. But no complaint has been made against
the counsel and no such fact or report has been brought on
record. Then in the same petition the petitioner claims that the
written statement could not be filed for want of requisite
documents. Both could not be true. So it is much clear that the
petitioner wants to take advantage of his own wrong which
could not be allowed. The authority cited by the petitioner in the
case of M/s R.N. Jadi & Brother (supra) could not be of help to
the cause of the petitioner since the facts are not similar.
6. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned
order dated 17.02.2017 and hence, the same is affirmed.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in
the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is
dismissed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Anuradha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 10.02.2025
Transmission Date N/A
