NAVNEET NATH TIWARI Vs. SABITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.7 to 11 and 12 and the notice upon other opposite parties were validly served, however, they have chosen not to appear.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dtd. 26/4/2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) I, Gumla in Original Suit No.33 of 2019.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition filed by defendant No.10 under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC has been allowed by the learned Court which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that Original Suit No.33 of 2019 has been instituted by plaintiff Sri Om Prakash Nath Tiwari and Others against the defendants for declaring the deed of sale being Sale Deed No.1113/1089 dtd. 8/5/2013 and other deeds as ab-initio, null and void, illegal, inoperative. He submits that other prayers were also made in the suit. He submits that the learned Court has been pleased to issue notice which has been received by defendant Nos.7, 8, 9, and 12 and by order dtd. 22/3/2022 they have been debarred to file the written statement. He submits that thereafter on 25/8/2022 the petition for recalling the said order and to allow to file the written statement was filed which has been allowed by the learned Court by order dtd. 26/4/2023. He submits that the delay in filing of the said written statement has not been explained substantially and in view of that the learned Court has erred in passing of the said order. To buttress this argument, he relied in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atcom Technologies Limited versus Y.A. Chunawala and Company reported in (2018) 6 SCC 639, wherein at paragraph No.21 and 22 it has been held as under :