A-69 % 25.08.2011 Present: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. +CM No. 15808/2011 (exemption) in CM(M) No. 988/2011 * Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM(M) No. 988/2011 and CM No. 15807/2011(stav) The order impugned before this court is the order dated 15.03.2011 vide which application filed by the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking permission to file his written statement had been declined; record shows that on 18.11.2010, the court after considering provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code had closed the right of the defendant to file his written statement as the court had noted that more than six months have passed from the date of the service of the defendant but he has not chosen to file his written statement; no reasonable explanation had also been furnished by him for not filing his written statement; this was vide order dated 18.11.2010. The order dated 18.11.2010 has since attained finality; no challenge has been made to this order. On 15.03.2011 an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code had been filed by the defendant on which date impugned order had been passed, rightly so, as the right of the defendant to file his written statement already stood closed by an earher order i.e. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified order dated 18.11.2010 which as already noted was not the subject matter of challenge before any court. The same contention was thereafter again raised in an application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code which provision had already been considered and declined by the earlier order; clearly showing the casual and lackadaisical attitude of such a litigant who did not even know that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code had already been considered by an earlier order i.e. order dated 18.11.2010 and his right to file written statement stood closed. The averments made in the application under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code have also been perused; in para 2 it has been stated that because of the illness of the counsel for the defendant the written statement could not be filed; there is no elaboration of this plea. The medical record of the illness of the counsel for the defendant was also admittedly not a part of the record and had not been filed. In these circumstances, the court had rightly rejected the plea of the defendant to take his written statement on record; such a negligent litigant deserves no sympathy. Impugned order suffers no infirmity; it is c^smissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 25, 2011 rb