V.S.Bajpai, J. - (1.) This civil revision was taken up today as fresh, Notice was earlier accepted by Sri P.K. Jain, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists and the respondent.
(2.) The revision is directed against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Ghaziabad, on 9.2.2005 in Original suit No. 869 of 2002, Dr. Bharat Kumar Gupta v. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills and Ors., allowing the application of the respondent under Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. and rejecting the written statements filed by the revisionists. The trial Court further directed the suit to proceed in view of the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10 C.P.C.
(3.) Facts in brief are that the respondent had filed a suit on 5.7.2002 in which 6.9.2002 was fixed for filing of the written statement. On that date the revisionists' Counsel appeared before the Court and sought time to file written statement. Thereafter, the revisionists continued to move adjournment applications on 13.9.2002, 25.10.2002, 23.11.2002, 11.2.2003, 3.4.2003, 3.12.2003; 1.4.2004 and 22.3.2004. Even after 22.3.2004 the revisionists sought adjournments. Ultimately, the revisionists filed their written statements on 8.4.2004 and 1.9.2004. These written statements were not filed within 90 days of the date of service of summons upon them. The respondent then moved the application under Order VIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. for rejecting both the written statements and to proceed to decide the suit under Order VIII, Rule 10 C.P.C.;