BHIM MAHTO @ BHIM LAL MAHTO Vs. BUDHAN MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 6.4.2004 passed by the learned Munsif Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No. 29 of 2003 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 22.12.2003 has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that several adjournments for filing the written statement were sought for on the ground that his counsel had gone abroad.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he is a rural cultivator and the suit is related to the agricultural land and if the petitioner is not allowed to contest the suit he shall be put to suffer irreparable loss and injury and shall be seriously prejudiced. According to the petitioner, there was no intentional delay on his part as -he had engaged counsel but the counsel thereafter went abroad. He has been waiting for his return and owing to the same he could not file written statement on the date fixed. As soon as his counsel came from abroad he has filed written statement on 13.2.2004. According to the petitioner, there was no wilful laches or negligence on his part and he was prevented from filing written statement in the circumstance beyond his control.

(3.) NOTICE was issued in the matter to the respondent who has appeared through his learned counsel Mr. Dilip Kumar Jaiswal. It has been submitted by Mr. Jaiswal that more than sufficient time was granted to the petitioner for filing his written statement but he failed to file the same and that the petitioner has been rightly debarred from filing written statement. It has further been stated that there was no weighty ground for recalling the order dated 22.12.2003 by which the petitioner was debarred from filing the written statement and that the impugned order is just sound and valid.