GOLAK BIHARI RAJWAR Vs. RATAN LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.7.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Bokaro in Civil Misc. Case No. 21/2011 whereby the petitioner's petition for giving extension of time for filing the written statement has been rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No. 24/2005. The said Title Suit No. 24/2005 was decreed ex parte against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed miscellaneous case being No. 6/08, which was also dismissed. The petitioner then preferred miscellaneous appeal before learned District Judge, Bokaro being M. A. No. 12/09. Learned lower appellate Court held that notice was not served on the defendant properly and as such he set aside the ex parte decree. Learned lower appellate Court granted 30 days' time to the petitioner to file the written statement. The petitioner did not file the written statement within the prescribed time. Learned Trial Court, thereafter, debarred the petitioner from filing the written statement. The petitioner then filed petition before learned District Judge for extension of time granted to him by the impugned order. Learned District Judge rejected the petitioner's said application and directed learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat to dispose of Title Suit No. 24/05 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he had shown just reasons for not filing the written statement within the prescribed time granted to him and also for extension of further time, but learned District Judge, Bokaro did not appreciate the same and rejected the petitioner's petition.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused, the impugned order, I find no error or illegality in the impugned order of learned District Judge. Learned District Judge has assigned sound reasons for not entertaining the petition for extension of time. He has observed that the petitioner was aware about the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 24/ 05 and was also aware about the agreement (Ext. -1) by 12.5.2011 i. e. about three years ago. The petitioner had opportunity to obtain the certified copy of the same and to file the written statement within 30 days granted to him by the impugned order, but the petitioner failed to do the same. The reasons assigned by learned District Judge are sound and speaking.