- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, learned coun sel for the petitioner and learned stand ing counsel for respondent no. 1.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 13. 05. 2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Roorkee in original suit no. 84 of 2004 (Dinesh Kaushik Vs. Ahmad Bharti and others ). Briefly stated original suit no. 84 of 2004 was filed on 31. 05. 2004 and the petitioner has filed his wiitten state ment on 14. 09. 2005. On 09. 03. 2005, the respondent no. 2 filed an applica tion under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC bearing no. 26 Gh. After receiving the copy the petitioner has filed his objec tion on 01. 04. 2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that application was allowed and therefore, he has apprehension that the written statement which has already been accepted shall not be taken on record accepted on account of allowing of the application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. The apprehension of the peti tioner has no basis, in view of the fact that the Apex Court has already held the provision to be procedural in Salem Bar Association Vs. Union of India re ported in AIR 2005scwpage 2346. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the respondent no. 1 i. e. Civil Judge, is directed to consider disposal of the application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC filed by respondent no. 2 in view of the observation made by Apex Court.
(3.) SUBJECT to the above, the writ pe tition is disposed of accordingly. .;