IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 116 of 2007 (M/S) Sanjeev Kumar … Petitioner Versus Civil Judge (S.D.), Roorkee & another … Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Arya, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. Order sheet indicates that the plaintiff opposite party has been served. No one appears on his behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed. The suit was instituted in April 2004. The petitioner is a defendant and appeared and filed his written statement on 19th November, 2004. Apparently, there had been a delay, but the same was taken on record. After 22 months, an application 15G 2 was moved by the plaintiff contending that the written statement should not be taken on record, since it was filed beyond the stipulated period of 90 days. The said application 15G 2 came for disposal on 27th January, 2007. The impugned order indicates that no objection to the said application was filed by the defendant, nor the defendant appeared and, accordingly, the court below allowed the application and held that the written statement cannot be taken on record. The petitioner, being aggrieved, by the said order has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the defendant petitioner contended that on 27th January, 2007, an application for adjournment was moved on the ground that the counsel is 2 running a fever and was unwell. This application was opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and, inspite of this application being presented before the court, no orders were passed by the Presiding Officer and the court below passed the impugned order completely ignoring the adjournment application. 4. A certified copy of the application has been filed by the petitioner, which is annexed as annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Necessary averment to this effect has been made in paragraph 6, which remains unrebutted. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that when an adjournment application was moved, it was the onerous duty of the court below to deal with the said application before proceeding to decide any other application. Since, there is nothing on record to show that the adjournment application was rejected, the court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 27th January, 2007 allowing the application 15G 2 could not be sustained and is quashed. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 7. Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the Registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 28.12.2011 Aswal