Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS are defendants in O.S. No. 242 of 2006, Rajendra v. Yogendra Kumar and others. The suit is pending before Civil Judge (S.D.), Mau. Defendants petitioners filed the written statement extremely late and in spite of the fact that earlier repeated opportunities had been provided to them. Ultimately, written statement was filed on 6.10.2009. Through order dated 27.7.2012, Civil Judge (S.D.), Mau refused to take the written statement on record. Against the said order, petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 45 of 2012, which was dismissed on 6.4.2013 by District Judge, Mau, hence this writ petition. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that petitioners were not vigilant and had filed written statement quite late.
(2.) HOWEVER , in view of Supreme Court authority in Kailash v. Nanhku, : AIR 2005 SC 2441 : 2005 (4) SCC 480 : 2005 (2) AWC 1490 (SC), writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case petitioners file an application for recall of the order dated 27.7.2012 before the trial court within three weeks from today after getting prepared a draft of Rs. 25,000 in the name of the plaintiff and annexing photostat copy of the said draft alongwith the application, then the trial court may sympathetically consider the said application and in case the trial court decides to allow the application and take on record the written statement filed by the defendants petitioners then the application shall be allowed on payment of Rs. 25,000 as cost and the draft shall at once be handed over by the petitioners to the plaintiff respondent before the court concerned.;