- (1.) The facts of this case need not detain us for long.
(2.) The applicants in this revision are the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 206 of 2001, which was filed on 5-12-2001. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application that the notice of the suit was served upon the defendant in December 2001 and they appeared in Court on 14-1-2001. It appears that time was repeatedly granted thereafter to the defendants to file a written statement and last opportunity was granted by the trial Court on 29-4-2002 but the written statement was not filed and it was only on 4-12-2002 that an application 52-C was filed by the defendants stating that the written statement being filed be taken on record and the delay be condoned. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. By the impugned order dated 30-1-2003 the trial Court condoned the delay and took the written statement on record on payment of costs. This order is under challenge in this revision.
(3.) The Code of Civil Procedure was amended by Act No. 46 of 1999, which was to come into force on such date as the Central Government would appoint and different dates could be appointed for different provisions of the Act and for different states. Before the Act could be enforced amendments were again made by Act No. 22 of 2002 in Act No. 46 of 1999 as well as in the principal Act. The amendments made in Act No. 46 of 1999 together with the amendment made in the principal Act by Act No. 22 of 2001 were enforced with effect from 1st July, 2002.;