Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 of Original Suit No. 355 of 2006 have filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 29.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Meerut by which the application filed by the said defendants for allowing them to file the written-statement was rejected.
(2.) The Original Suit had been filed by respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 of this petition for a decree of perpetual injunction against defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3 from making any hindrance, obstruction and interference in the development work of the entire colony and for a declaration against defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3 that the six gift deeds and the sale deed dated 9.11.2005 based on the gift deeds be cancelled.
(3.) The suit was instituted on 19.4.2006 and even though a caveat had been filed on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and copies had also been supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the said defendants, the written statement was not filed by the said defendant Nos. 1 and 2 within the period of 30 days or the extended period of 90 days as provided for in Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC'). An application (68C) was filed by the plaintiffs on 14.5.2007 under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC that as the written statement had not been filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the Court may pronounce the judgment against them. Subsequently, on 18.5.2007 an application was filed by the said defendants for accepting the written statement mentioning therein the reasons why the written statement could not be filed earlier. An objection was filed by the plaintiffs to the said application. The Trial Court by the order dated 29.9.2007 rejected the application filed by the petitioner-defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for bringing on record the written statement.;