Patna High Court - Orders
Sri Satish Prasad Mishra vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 April, 2014
Author: Mungeshwar Sahoo
Bench: Mungeshwar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10144 of 2011
======================================================
Sri Satish Prasad Mishra
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR
SAHOO
ORAL ORDER
10 10-04-20141. Heard the learned counsel, Ms. Sushmita Mishra, on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Gopi Jha, A.C. to G.P.25, on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2.
2. By the impugned order dated 09.08.2006, the learned Sub Judge IInd, Naugachiya Bhagalpur rejected the application filed by the plaintiff petitioner for rejection of the written statement.
3. It appears that title suit was filed by the plaintiff petitioner praying for correction of the entry in the revisional survey record of right which was wrongly recorded in the name of 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.10144 of 2011 (10) dt.10-04-2014 2/4 State of Bihar and respondent No.8. Subsequently, some private persons including the defendant No.7 intervene in the suit. Thereafter, the defendant No.7 filed contesting written statement. Subsequently, defendant No.7 died and his legal representatives were substituted. The legal representatives filed separate written statement. The written statement filed by the legal representatives were accepted and thereafter the application was filed by the plaintiff alleging that the legal representatives who filed additional written statement subsequently is contrary to the stand taken by the original defendant No.7 in his written statement. Rejoinders were filed. By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the application filed by the plaintiff.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the legal representatives have no right to file written statement taking a different stand than that of the original defendant. In the present case, the substituted defendants have filed the written statement entirely taking a different stand. In such view of the matter, the Court below should have rejected the written statement in view of the decision of this Court in the case of 2007 (4) P.L.J.R. 564 Om Prakash Verma Vs. Smt. Sheela Shukla.
5. On the contrary, the learned A.C. to G.P.25 submitted 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.10144 of 2011 (10) dt.10-04-2014 3/4 that there is no illegality in the impugned order and the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order because the written statement filed by the substituted defendants was admitted and there is no provision of rejection of the written statement.
6. Perused the order. From perusal of the order, it appears that the Court below after hearing the parties recorded the finding in the last paragraph of the impugned order that the stand taken by the substituted defendants are not contrary to the stand taken in the original written statement. So far this finding is concerned, it may be mentioned here that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court cannot supervise order by taking a different view on the basis of the investigation of two written statements.
7. So far the decision relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, from perusal of the same, it appears that in that case, the trial Court itself has recorded a finding that the substituted defendants had taken a contrary stand than the stand taken in the original written statement by the deceased defendant. In the present case, the mater is different. However, it will be open for the plaintiff to point out the contrary stand taken by the substituted defendants than the stand taken in the written statement filed by the defendant No.7 at the time of final hearing of the suit. If any 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.10144 of 2011 (10) dt.10-04-2014 4/4 contrary stand has been taken by the substituted defendants, the Court shall consider its admissibility according to law.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed with aforesaid observation.
(Mungeshwar Sahoo, J) Sanjeev/-