BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. LAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present interlocutory application has been filed in a disposed of writ petition by the petitioner for extension of time to deposit the cost of Rs.500/ -, on the ground, stated in the application.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no.1 is vehemently opposing this prayer on the ground that he has filed Title Suit No. 10 of 2009 before the learned Sub -Judge I, Seraikella for declaration, possession and permanent injunction for restraining the original defendants from demolishing the house. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the present petitioner, who is an original defendant, is in possession of the property, in question, and, therefore, he is not filing his written statement in the Title Suit. The suit was filed on 17.3.2009, wherein, defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 appeared on 1.9.2009. Thereafter, no written statement was filed within the prescribed time limit and, therefore, an order was passed by the learned trial court on 15th April, 2010, as the present petitioner did not file his written statement, in time. The said order was challenged before this Court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3384 of 2010, wherein, vide order dated 29th April, 2010, this Court imposed a cost upon the petitioner (original defendant in the Title Suit) of Rs.500/ - and the written statement was permitted to be filed. This cost was to be deposited within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I see no reason to extend the time to deposit the cost and to permit the present petitioner to file his written statement, mainly for the following reasons: