Biswajitbasu, J. - (1.) The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and injunction and is directed against the order dated July 30, 2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 9th Court at Alipore, in Title Suit No. 2405 of 2016, whereby the learned Trial Judge has accepted the written statement filed by the defendant No. 9 as the same was filed within the prescribed period of time for filing written statement and accepted the written statements filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 beyond the prescribed period of limitation upon payment of costs.
(2.) The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the said order as the said defendants did not file their said written statement for a pretty long time keeping their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, praying rejection of the plaint of the suit pending for a long time and ultimately did not press the said application but made pendency of the said application as the ground for extension of the time for filing their written statement.
(3.) Mr.Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the defendants after their appearance did not file their written statement on the ground of pendency of their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code seeking rejection of the plaint but ultimately did not press the said application. He submits that the said provision of the Code cannot be used as a tool to recover the lost opportunity of filing the written statement of the suit. In support of his such contention he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.K. ROJA VERSUSU.S. RAYUDU AND ANOTHE Rreported in, 2016 14 SCC 275 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of Delhi Court in the case of Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd. versus Prabhakar Hybrid Seeds reported in, 2013 197 DLT 393.;