1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4624/2005. The Chief Engineer, IGNP, Bikaner & Ors. Vs. M/s Manohar Construction Company Date of Order :: 1st August 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.A.S.Rathore, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for the petitioners. Mr.M.C.Bishnoi, for the respondent. .... BY THE COURT: Though the matter has been placed for orders on stay application, learned counsel for the parties submit ad idem that after passing of the order dated 09.08.2005 by this Court in this writ petition and upon the petitioners' depositing the requisite amount of costs, their written statement was taken on record and thereafter, the trial proceeded and, ultimately, the suit has been decided by the learned Trial Court. While admitting this writ petition against the order dated 15.05.2004 whereby the learned Trial Court refused to take on record the written statement belatedly filed, this Court passed the following order:- ''Admit. Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application. Meanwhile, if the appellant deposits a cost of Rs.15,000/- in the learned trial court to be paid to the plaintiff, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed, and the learned trial court shall proceed with the trial of the suit, treating the written statement to have been taken on record. The cost be paid on the date of hearing fixed in the trial court. It is 2 made clear that if this time cost is not deposited, this order will come to an end, and the learned trial court will be free to proceed with the trial of the suit treating the impugned order to be in force.'' For the submissions as made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the requirements of the aforesaid interim order have been carried out and the trial of the suit has been concluded while taking the written statement on record; and the impugned order dated 15.05.2004 has lost its efficacy. However, for clarification and for putting the record straight, it appears appropriate to make the interim order dated 09.08.2005 absolute and to set aside the impugned order dated 15.05.2004 so that the written statement forms the part of record. Even on merits, this Court is unable to countenance the approach of the learned District Judge, Bikaner in refusing to take the written statement on record with abstract reference to the Order VIII Rule 1 CPC without considering the other relevant aspects of the matter including the reasons assigned for delay and so also the requirements of interest of justice. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order dated 15.05.2004 is set aside; and the interim order passed in this writ petition on 09.08.2005 is made absolute. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK