ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, A.C.J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred by 3rd defendant/ petitioner against the order dated 13th October, 2004 passed by Sub-Judge V, Hazaribagh in Title (Partition) Suit No. 93 of 1977, whereby and whereunder, the Court below allowed the amendment petition dated 21st September, 2004, as preferred by the plaintiff/1st respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that one Suropati Chakravarty, father of plaintiff/1st respondent filed the aforesaid suit for partition being Title Suit No. 93 of 1977, claiming partition of 1/4th share in the Schedule B properties and half share in the Schedule C properties. Schedule C properties which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, comprised of 20 decimals of Plot No. 2904 under Khata No. 225. The original plaintiff, father of present plaintiff/1st respondent claimed that the Schedule C property was acquired jointly by one Suropati Chakravarty and another Shreepati Lal Chakravarty and, therefore, both of them have half share each i.e. 10 decimals each. 3. 2nd to 6th defendants appeared and filed written statement to contest the suit. They contended that the total areas of 43 decimals of Plot No. 2904 was reclaimed by Shreepati Lal Chakravarty and ex-landlord granted raiyati settlement by a hukumnama dated 23rd January, 1937 and thus shreepati Lal Chakravarty was the exclusive owner. It was further pleaded that out of 43 decimals, 15-1/2 decimals were given by Shreepati Lal Chakravarty to his 3rd brother Jagdish Chandra Chakravarty and out of the balance area of 27-1/2 decimals, certain portions were alienated and in the balance area Shreepati Lal Chakravarty constructed rooms for shops which were let out to tenants. 4. 11th and 12th defendants also appeared before the Court below and filed their joint written statement. According to petitioner, 11th and 12th defendants in their written statement also admitted the fact that a number of rooms for shops, were constructed and were let out by Shreepati Lal Chakravarty. 5. It appears that 11th and 12th defendants subsequently filed a second written statement describing the same as the correct written statement. For the first time, it was pleaded therein that no settlement was made in favour of Shreepati Lal Chakravarty and the heirs of the ex-landlored continued to be in possession of the land and certain portions were transferred during the pendency of the suit. For the first time, it was pleaded therein that no settlement was made in favour of Shreepati Lal Chakravarty and the heirs of the ex-landlored continued to be in possession of the land and certain portions were transferred during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court by its order dated 9th September, 2003 refused to accept the subsequent so called second written statement preferred by 11th and 12th defendants. Thereafter, one Banswarl Lal @ Banwari Lal Agarwala alongwith Binod Kumar, Chandra Shekhar, Anuj Kumar and Jagdish Agarwala moved before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of refusal to accept the 2nd written statement as was preferred by 11th and 12th defendants. The said case was registered as W.P. (C) No. 6530 of 2003 and was dismissed on 6th May, 2004, with the following observation : I find no reason to exercise any discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the. Constitution of India for interfering with the order of the Court below. The conduct of the petitioners does not appear to be bona fide. The original written statement was filed in the year 1978. Further written statement was filed by the legal representatives of defendant No. 12, through their father and guardian, on 2.3.1982, After the suit was taken up, the trial was completed and it was posted for arguments, an attempt was made to withdraw the original written statement and substitute a new written statement in its place. The trial Court rightly refused to allow that prayer. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. I dismiss the petition and direct the trial Court, if it has not already completed the hearing of arguments and has not pronounced the judgment, to complete the hearing immediately and deliver the judgment, in any, event, within two months from this date. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the change of stand as was made in the 2nd written statement preferred by 11th and 12th defendants was not allowed by this Court, but on a subsequent petition for amendment with similar plea and change of stand as was preferred by the plaintiff/1st respondent, it was allowed by the Court below vide impugned order dated 13th October, 2004. 7. 7. The plaintiff/1st respondent has appeared, but not filed any affidavit opposing the prayer as made in this petition nor disputed the facts, as pleaded by petitioner and noticed above. 8. From the impugned order dated 13th October, 2004, it is evident that the sub-Judge v. Hazaribagh simply referred the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff/1st respondent and referred to the orders passed in one Misc. Case No. 6/04-05, dated 7th July, 2004 and 27the July. 2004 passed by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh, order dated 1st July, 2004 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 38 of 2003 and orders passed in Eviction Suit No. 2/04; 3/04; and 1/04; certified copies of which alongwith a kabuliat executed by Arun Kumar Chakravarty in favour of one Banwari Lal Agarwala bearing No. 2674, dated 20th September, 2003 were filed before the Court. While the Court below observed that many subsequent events have taken place, simply allowed the amendment petition without discussing the objection as was raised by this petitioner. 9. The Court below failed to notice that the similar stand as was taken by the 11th and 12th defendants when a 2nd written statement was filed by them, but it was not accepted by this Court. In W.P. (C) No. 6530 of 2003, this Court, having noticed that the suit related to partition; original written statement was filed in the year 1978; suit was pending since 1977, by its order dated 6th May, 2004 while refused to allow the prayer as was made by writ petitioner, directed the Court below to complete the hearing, if no completed, and to pronounce the judgment within two months from the said date i.e. by 6th July, 2004. Such specific directions having been issued by this Court, it was not open to the Court below to allow such amendment of prayer, which .was filed on 21st September, 2004 i.e. after four months from the date of order of this Court, the impugned order dated 13th October, 2004 being against the spirit and order of this Court dated 6th May, 2004 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6530 of 2003, cannot be sustained, it is, accordingly, set aside. The Court below is directed to conclude the hearing and pronounce the judgment, without making unnecessary adjournment, immediately, but not later than two months. The Court below is directed to conclude the hearing and pronounce the judgment, without making unnecessary adjournment, immediately, but not later than two months. If the Court below fails to comply with the direction of this Court, the learned Judge will record its reasoning and forward the ground to the Administrative side of this Court to find out the problems, The Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Court below immediately. 10. This writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions. However, there shall be no order, as to costs.