1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER Dhansi through his legal heirs & Anr. Vs. Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sikrai, Dausa & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5983/2010) Date of Order :- May 12, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Ashok Singh Shekhawat, for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate Fast Track, Sikrai, District Dausa whereby the learned Magistrate has declined to take the written statement on record. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner Nos.1 & No.2, and the defendant-respondent No.3. Initially, the Vakalatnama was filed by the defendants; on 08.07.1985 the case was adjourned for 21.11.1985. Thereafter, the file was misplaced for about twenty years. Thereafter, on 20.12.2006 fresh notices were issued to the defendants. After service thereof, the defendant Nos.1 & 3 filed their Vakalatnama on 16.05.2007. They sought time for filing of the written statements. The suit remained pending for filing of the written statements and for awaiting service on the defendant No.2. Therefore, upon service, the defendant No.2 filed his 2 Vakalatnama on 07.08.2008. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 both filed their joint written statements on 07.08.2008, along with an application for taking the same on record. Subsequently, the defendant No.1 died and his legal representatives were taken on record. On 11.01.2010, the respondent-plaintiff filed his reply to the application for taking written statements on record. However, after hearing the arguments, vide order 30.03.2010, the learned Magistrate closed the right to file written statements of the defendant Nos.1 & 2. Hence, this petition before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the file of the case was lost for over twenty years, the petitioners could not submit their written statements. Moreover, in the interest of justice, they should be permitted to do so and the written statements filed by them should be taken on record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that when the suit was filed, on 28.05.1983, the petitioners had put in appearance through their counsel. Although it may be true that the file could not be traced for twenty long years, but nonetheless the petitioners were aware of the fact that the civil suit was still pending against them. Moreover, once the file was 3 discovered, on 16.05.2007, they had again placed their appearance through their counsel. Thus, from 16.05.2007, they were also aware that the suit is still pending. Yet, they did not file their written statements till 07.08.2008 i.e. after a period of one year and three months. For the delay of one year and three months, they have not been able to give any cogent justification. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is certainly justified in rejecting their application for taking the written statements on record. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. Thus, this petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-