AMBUJ TIWARY Vs. MUKTA MANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 4.6.2013 passed in T.S. No. 6/80 pending in the Court of learned Sub-Judge-IV, Chapra whereby petitioner's application for allowing her to file written statement; is under challenge in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has been substituted in place of original defendant No. 1 on 21.2.2013 after his death on 21.1.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the contesting Respondents in detail.

(2.) The facts for adjudication of the present case are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff before the Court below. Suit was filed in the year 1980 impleading petitioner's father, Nand Kishore and her brothers Shiv Shankar, Ram Shankar and sister Shiv Kumari, Shiv Kumari's husband Umapati Pathak as defendants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. After service of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed Vakalatnama. The suit remained pending for several years in the view of the provision as contained in Section 4(c) of Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. Nand Kishore, defendant No. 1 did not filed any written statement and died on 26.1.2006. A petition for substituting the legal heirs of defendant No. 1 was filed, thereafter, on 26.12.2006. The substitution petition remained pending for several years. During the pendency of substitution petitions dated 26.12.2006, defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 filed their written statement on 7.3.2011 which was accepted vide an order dated 5.7.2011. Till then issues have not been framed.

(3.) Without any order on application for substitution dated 26.12.2006, the Court below framed the issues on the basis of available pleadings on 4.8.2012. Subsequently, vide order dated 21.2.2013, the substitution petition was allowed and the petitioner came to be dismissed substituted in place of Nand Kishore as a defendant. On 9.4.2013, notice was reported to have been validly served upon the petitioner. After service of notice, the petitioner entered appearance on 4.6.2013 praying for time for filing written statement. The said application has been rejected on the same day by the Court by the impugned order. This is to be noted that in the meanwhile the evidence started on 22.5.2013.