- (1.) By the impugned order dated 25-1-1996, the trial Court refused to take on record the written statement and the counter claim.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit as representatives of members of Kumawat Caste under Order 1, Rule 8. CPC. It appears that initially plaintiffs impleaded one defendant Trilokram. On application filed by the members of the said caste, the Court allowed the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC and permitted the applicants to be impleaded as defendants. Thereafter, one application for reiew was filed by one of the defendants which was dismissed by the Court and thereafter several opportunities were granted to the defendants to file the written statement. Even the Court granted opportunity to the defendants to file written statement on payment of cost and ultimately, by order dated 26- 10-1995, the defendants right to file written statement was closed. Before the next date, the defendants submitted written statement along with application under Section 151, CPC for taking on record the written statement filed by the defendants petitioners. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, by order dated 25-1-1996 refused to take on record the already filed written statements on the ground that in total 33 opportunities were granted to the defendants to file written statements but they did not file the same. The petitioners are aggrieved of the said order dated 25-1-1996.
(3.) This Court entertained the revision petition against the said order and granted interim order staying further proceedings in the suit before the trial Court on 22-2-1996. The said order was confirmed by order dated 7-3-1996 after hearing both the parties. In this way the matter is pending before this Court since last more than seven years.;