Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 771 (JHR)

Mukesh Kumar Sahu v. Sanat Kumar Dawn

2008-07-22

M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
Order In the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.5.2007 passed by Subordinate Judge-IlI, Koderma in Eviction Suit NO.7 of 1995 whereby he has refused the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to file written statement. 2. The brief facts, which are relevant, are that the plaintiff-respondent filed aforementioned suit against the father of the petitioner and one Md. Laik Khan and M/s Menoka Hotel for a decree of eviction and realization of the earlier rent and compensation. The plaintiff's case is that he is owner of the suit property in which original defendant No. 1 was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The original defendant No. 1 filed written statement and contested the suit. However, original defendant No. 1 died leaving behind the widow. minor sons and daughters including the petitioner. After the death, the substituted defendants also filed a written statement. After attaining majority, the petitioner sought permission to the Court for filing written statement which was refused by the impugned order. 3. Learned Court below took the view that nothing was brought on record by the petitioner to suggest that his mother, being his natural guardian, had any adverse interest prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. The other defendants have hotly contested the suit by filing written statement and adducing evidence. 4. I have heard Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Admittedly, the suit for eviction filed in the year 1995 is still pending at the stage of argument. It is not in dispute that the petitioner attained majority at the age of 18 years, but made a prayer for filing written statement after attaining the age of 27 years. It was also not in dispute that the suit has been contested by other defendants including mother of the petitioner whose interest cannot be adverse to the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may the eviction suit is pending since 1995 and it is at the final stage of disposal. The Court below, therefore, rightly passed the impugned order refusing the prayer of the petitioner for filing further written statement. The impugned order needs no interference by this Court. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.