1 Smt. Saroj Saini Vs. Sri Kishan and Another. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1137/10) Dated:- 07.7.10. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. J.K. Bhaiya, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Hedau for the respondents. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 01.12.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Jodhpur whereby the petitioner/defendant's right to file written statement stands closed. 2. While passing the order impugned, the trial court has observed that in pursuance of the summons served, the petitioner/defendant put in appearance before the trial court through her counsel on 26.10.2006 and thereafter the matter remained pending for filing the written statement. However, instead of filing written statement, on 9.2.2007 the petitioner/defendant preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 25.7.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/defendant preferred a writ petition before this Court wherein the matter was remanded to the trial court. During pendency of the writ petition before this Court against the order rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, on 2 21.10.08, the plaintiff preferred an application for closure of right of the petitioner/defendant to file written statement and for disposal of the suit in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, however, in the meantime, on 21.8.2008 the petitioner/defendant had already filed the written statement. The application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was disposed of by the trial court on 24.7.09. 3. The trial court while allowing the application preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC partly, has closed the right of the petitioner/defendant to file written statement on the ground that the petitioner/defendant has not cared to file the written statement even after lapse of period of about two years. The trial court opined that in view of the inordinate delay in filing the written statement, the same cannot be taken on record. 4. It is true that the written statement was not filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period, but then, the rules of procedure are hand maiden of justice and the same cannot be applied strictly so as to defeat the cause of justice. It is pertinent to note that the matter remained pending before the trial court for consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for about a period of two years. Indisputably, the delay in decision of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC cannot be attributed to the petitioner/defendant. Be that as it may, the 3 proceedings of the suit has already been delayed and in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant is taken on record so that she may not be deprived from defending the case against her altogether. For the delay caused, the respondent/plaintiff can be compensated by payment of heavy cost by the petitioner/defendant. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 01.12.2009 is quashed. The written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant is directed to be taken on record subject to payment of cost by the petitioner/defendant to the respondents/plaintiffs quantified at Rs. 5000/-. (SANGEET LODHA),J. rp/-