TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THE opposite party is represented through Sri C.B. Gupta and with the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit since no factual controversy is involved.
(2.) HEARD Sri H.N. Singh, the learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner and Sri C.B. Gupta, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit in the year 1998 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property in question. The order sheet of the court below which has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition indicates that the petitioner was served with the plaint in the year 2002. The order sheet from 1998 to 2002 indicates that for a substantial period of time, the Court was vacant and there was no presiding officer, so no judicial proceeding went oh in the said case. Between 2002 till 26.9.2007, the order sheet indicates that on most dates either the Advocates were on strike, and therefore, no judicial work could be done or the prescribed officer was on leave or the Court was vacant.
(3.) IT is alleged that the written statement was eventually filed when the Court started functioning on 29.9.07 which was opposed by the plaintiff and consequently by the impugned order dated 30.8.08, the trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner to keep the written statement on the record on the ground that there has been a substantial delay in filing the written statement. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a, revision which was also dismissed and consequently, the present writ petition has been filed.;