IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5156 of 2004. Lal Chand Agarwal (Saraf) son of Shri Ram Das & Another VERSUS Kaushalya Dargani wife of Gagan Das Dargani & Others Date Of Order ::: 11/04/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, advocate, for Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Senior Counsel, for the Respondents By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The defendant/petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the impugned order dated 12.05.2003 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaipur City (East), Jaipur closing their written-statements. The plaintiff/respondents instituted a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the disputed property in the trial Court against the defendant/petitioners, wherein the defendants were served with the summons on 27.07.2002. Their Counsel appeared on 29.07.2002. The written-statement was not filed by the defendants. The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14, of the C.P.C. on 05.12.2002, which was dismissed as not pressed on 01.05.2003, and thereafter a last opportunity to file the written- statement was further granted to the defendants and the case was fixed for 12th May, 2003. On that day, the Counsel for the defendants further sought time to file written-statement, but the same was declined by the trial Court by observing that the summons were served on the defendants on 27.07.2002, and as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1, C.P.C. the written-statement could have been filed within a period of 30-days or at the most within a period of 90-days, but the same has not been filed, and these provisions are mandatory in nature, therefore, the written-statement of the defendants is closed. The said order has been impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the defendants had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14, C.P.C. in the learned trial Court for production of the documents on 05.12.2002 and the said application remained pending, and only on 01.05.2003 the said application was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, only one opportunity was granted to the defendants to file the written-statement by fixing the case on 12th May, 2003. The written-statement was not ready on that day, and a prayer was made to allow more time to file the written-statement, but the trial Court committed an illegality in not granting further time to file the written-statement, therefore, the impugned order dated 12.05.2003 is liable to be set aside by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the summons were served upon the defendants on 27.07.2002 and thereafter seven-opportunities were granted to the defendants to file the written-statements, but the same was not filed, and in these circumstances the learned trial Court was justified in closing the written-statement of the defendants and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 12.05.2003 passed by the learned trial court, along with the other proceedings of the learned trial Court, placed on record. It appears that the summons were served on the defendants on 27.07.2002 and the case remained pending for filing the written-statements up-to 05.12.2002, but instead of filing written-statement the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14, C.P.C., which was dismissed as not pressed on 01.05.2003. The trial Court again granted one more opportunity to file written-statement and fixed the case for 12.05.2003, but on that day also the written-statement was not filed. In these circumstances, the defendants remained negligent in not filing the written-statements, and I do not find any illegality in passing the impugned order by the trial court closing the written- statements of the defendants. However, in view of the fact that this Court while issuing notice to show cause to the respondents of this writ petition on 09.08.2004 had stayed the further proceedings of the trial Court, the trial Court has not proceeded with the suit, I think it fit and proper that the ends of justice will meet in case the defendants are granted one more opportunity to file the written- statements at the costs to compensate the plaintiffs for the delayed proceedings. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The defendants/petitioners are permitted to file their written-statements within a period of one-month from today at the costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs before or at the time of filing the written-statement. It is made clear that in case the written-statement is not filed within the aforesaid period or the costs, as awarded is not paid on or before filing of the written-statement, then the written-statement will be deemed to have been closed and no further opportunity will be granted for the same. The cost is made easy so far this writ petition is concerned. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/