Patna High Court
Sant Lal Uraon And Ors vs Deonath Uraon on 1 May, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1472 of 2017
======================================================
1. Sant Lal Uraon Son of Late Bachhu Uraon @ Bochai,
2. Nandu Uraon, Son of Late Bachhu Uraon @ Bochai.
3. Satya Narayan Uraon, Son of Late Bachhu Uraon @ Bochai.
4. Dharam Chand Uraon, Son of Late Tholai Bele Uraon, All resident of
Village- Birpur, Police Station- Mufassil Sadar, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Deonath Uraon Son of Late Sanichar Uraon, Resident of Village- Birpur,
Police Station- Mufassil Sadar, District- Purnea.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Md. Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-05-2025
Despite service of notice and opportunity given,
respondent is still unrepresented and hence, the matter has been
taken up for hearing and I intend to dispose of the petition at the
stage of admission itself.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The present petition has been filed for quashing
the order dated 01.04.2017 passed by learned Sub Judge- Ist,
Purnea in Title Suit No. 396 of 2013, whereby and whereunder
the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (in short 'the Code') for recalling the order dated
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1472 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
2/4
31.03.2015
has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are defendants before the learned trial court and the
respondent is plaintiff who has filed Title Suit No. 396 of 2013
for partition of his share in the suit land. The petitioners
appeared in the learned trial court by filing vakalatnama through
their pairvikar along with defendant nos. 3, 4, 11 and 12. One
Baidnath Uraon was the Karpardaz of the petitioners and he
assured the petitioners that he would be making proper pairvi in
the case but left the pairvi and went to Punjab to earn his
livelihood. Meanwhile, the petitioners came to know that they
have been debarred from filing the written statement vide order
dated 31.03.2015. Coming to know about this fact, the
petitioners filed a petition under Section 151 of the Code on
12.05.2016 for recalling the order dated 31.03.2015. The
petitioners also filed written statement on 25.06.2016. However,
learned trial court after hearing the parties rejected the petition
filed for recalling the order dated 31.03.2015 and the said order
is under challenge before this Court. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioners are rustic persons belonging to ST
category and they entrusted the pairvi of the case to their
Karpardaz and due to fault of their Karpardaz, their written
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1472 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
statement could not be filed within the stipulated time and there
is no deliberate delay on part of the petitioners in filing the
written statement. The suit is at initial stage and there is no
latches or negligence on part of the petitioners. But the fact was
not considered by the learned trial court and refused to allow the
petition for recalling of the order debarring the petitioners from
filing their written statement and the said order is not proper or
valid.
5. Perused the record.
6. From perusal of record I find that the learned
trial court refused to allow the petition of the petitioners for
recalling the order debarring them from filing the written
statement on the ground that it was filed after delay of two years
and if the prayer of the petitioners was allowed, it would render
the provision for filing written statement meaningless. However,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again held that the
provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code are directing in nature
and reference could be made to the case of Kailash v. Nankhu
& Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 and Salem Advocate Bar
Association, TamilNadu vs Union Of India reported in AIR
2005 SC 3353. It also appears from the record that the
petitioners entrusted the pairvi of their case to their Karpardaz
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1472 of 2017 dt.01-05-2025
but he did not make proper pairvi and left for Punjab and for
this reason, the petitioners had no means to know what is
happening before the learned trial court. Further, it is claimed
that the petitioners are rustic persons coming from the category
of Scheduled Tribes and were not much acquainted with the
provisions of law. The learned trial court ought to have taken all
these facts into consideration before rejecting the prayer of the
petitioners.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and
for the ends of justice, the impugned order dated 31.03.2015 is
set aside and the petition dated 12.05.2016 filed by the
petitioners is allowed. The written statement filed by the
petitioners could be taken on record subject to payment of cost
of Rs.3,000/- to the plaintiff/respondent on the first date before
the learned trial court.
8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
