- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. Heard Sri B. S. Khanka, Advocate for the petitioners, Standing counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri M. C. Pandey, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.
(2.) BY the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 16th October, 2003 passed by the respondent no. 1. Briefly stated, a suit No. 14 of 2003 was filed praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the re spondents from interfering in the premises in dispute. Along with the suit, respondent no. 2 has also filed an ap plication under Order 39 Rules 1 C. P. C. The suit was instituted on 16th May, 2003 and it appears that the written statement was filed on 06-09-2003. The impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to take back the written statement 28- Ka and the same shall not be taken on the record of the case.
(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Addl. District Judge shows that not only the written statement was directed to be taken back but also further order has been passed that the suit will pro ceed ex parte. During the proceedings of the case, the plaintiff has filed an applica tion 30-Ga stating therein that the writ ten statement filed by the petitioner is not admissible as the same was filed on 6th September, 2003 when in point of fact, the service was already affected on 17-05-2003, and the petitioner has put no appearance on 27-05-2003, through the Advocate.;