Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

I have already heard the learned counsel, Mr. S.K. Verma, for the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Mritunjay Kumar on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. The petitioners who are defendant No.18 and 19 in Title Suit No.545 of 2009 filed an application for recall of the order dated 11.09.2015 whereby petitioners were debarred from filing the written statement. The learned Sub Judge II, Patna by the part of the impugned order dated 31.3.2016 rejected the application considering the conduct of the petitioner and held that the petitioners are trying to delay the disposal of the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for partition by playing hide and seek game.

3. The learned counsel, Mr. S.K. Verma, for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners could not file the written statement within the period prescribed or granted by the Court because copy of the plaint was never served by the plaintiff in spite of direction of the Court. However, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are ready to compensate the plaintiff respondent for delay and the negligence, if attributable to the petitioners. But opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to