IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3527 of 2004. Mahesh Khandelwal son of Shri Murari Lal VERSUS The Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5 Bharatpur & Another Date Of Order ::: 25/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Pawan Dangur, advocate, for Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. R.K. Salecha, Counsel for the respondent no.2 BY THIS COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Plaintiff-respondent no.2 instituted a suit for recovery of due loan amount in the trial Court against the defendant/ petitioner, wherein the trial Court directed the defendant to file its written-statements before 26.04.2004. The Counsel for the defendant filed an application on 26.04.2004 in the trial Court, along with the written- statements to take the same on record contending therein that it could not be filed on 25.04.2004, as it was Sunday. The application was not contested by the plaintiff-Bank, as no reply to that application was filed. However, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that in case there was Holiday on 25.04.2004, then it should have been filed at 7.00AM on 26.04.2004, in place of 11.50AM. This order has been challenged by the defendant in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defendant was granted time to file written-statement before 26.04.2004 and 25.04.2004 being Holiday, the same was filed on 26.04.2004, therefore, the written-statement should have been taken on the record, and the application field by the petitioner in this regard was wrongly rejected by the trial Court, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has defended the impugned order. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 20.05.2004, which does not appear to be legal, just and reasonable, and in my view the same is liable to be set aside. The trial Court granted time to the defendant to file reply before 26.04.2004. Admittedly, there was Sunday on 25.04.2004, therefore, the defendant was at liberty to file its written- statements on 26.04.2004 before rising of the Court. The time of the Court was upto 12.30AM, therefore, he was at liberty to file written-statements on 26.04.2004 during Court's time. In view of above, I find that the order of the trial Court rejecting the application of the defendant was not correct and tenable in the eye of law and in these circumstances the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court dated 20.05.2004 is set aside. The application filed by the defendant dated 26.04.2004 is allowed and the written-statement filed by the defendant is directed to be taken on the record by the trial Court. There will be no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/