1 IQBAL VS. MUNIR ALI & ANR. (S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO. 3535/10 ) Dated:- 21.5.10. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.M.S.Purohit , for the petitioner. Mr. B.K.Vyas, for the respondents. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 4.2.10 passed by the Civil Judge(J.D.), Bikaner in Civil Suit No.468/01, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1 read with 151 of CPC, for taking the written statement on record , has been dismissed. 2. The respondent no.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant no.2 and the respondent no.1 & 3/defendants for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land in his possession. Despite opportunities being granted, the petitioner/defendant no.2 did not file the written statement and therefore, his right to file written statement was closed by order dated 26.11.02 passed by the trial court. Thereafter, on 6.3.03, the petitioner/defendant no.2 made an application for taking the written statement on record which remained pending consideration of the court for all these years and now the same has been dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 2 3. 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. Strangely enough, the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant no.2 for taking the written statement on record has remained pending consideration before the trial court for a period of 7 years. There is nothing on record to show that why the decision on the application was delayed inordinately. Be that as it may, the 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 no.2 is taken on record so that he may not be deprived from defending the case against him altogether. For the inordinate delay caused, the plaintiff can be compensated by payment of heavy cost by the petitioner/defendant no.2. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 4.2.10 is quashed. The application preferred by the petitioner/defendant no.2 for taking the written statement on record is allowed. The written statement filed is taken on record subject to payment of cost by the petitioner/defendant no.2 to the respondent/plaintiff quantified at Rs.5,000/-. (SANGEET LODHA),J.