ARUN BHANSALI, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 09.04.2007 (Annexure -4) and order dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure -6), whereby, the written statement has been taken on record, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VIII, Rule 5(2) CPC has been rejected and the review filed thereafter has also been rejected.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : the petitionersplaintiffs filed suits for permanent injunction against Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur ('UIT') on 29.03.1988, inter alia, seeking restraint against the defendant -respondent from interfering with petitioners' possession on the land in question; the summons were issued and matter was kept for written statement of the defendant on 22.08.1988; on 25.05.1989 application under Order VII, Rule 11 and Order VI, Rule 16 CPC was filed, which was rejected on 30.03.1992; a review against order dated 30.03.1992 was rejected on 03.10.1994; in the meanwhile another application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC was filed on 22.05.1992, which also came to be rejected by order dated 14.08.2000; review filed against order dated 14.08.2000 was dismissed on 26.11.2002; on 20.01.2005 the petitionersplaintiffs filed an application under Order VIII, Rule 5(2) CPC with the prayer that as the defendant has not filed written statement, a decree be passed on the basis of averments contained in the plaints; whereafter, without giving a copy of the written statement, the written statement was filed on 28.11.2005 in all the suits, the application was rejected by the trial court and the written statement was taken on record on payment of cost of Rs. 500/ - vide Annexure -4 in all the suits.
(3.) THE petitioners filed review petition, which was also rejected on 07.01.2010 (Annexure -6). It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court was not justified in taking the written statement on record, which was filed after a huge unexplained delay and the illegality was further compounded by rejection of the application seeking review of the order dated 09.04.2007; it was submitted that the trial court has not recorded any reason for condoning the huge delay; the respondent had filed writ petition after decision of the review petition, which was also rejected by this Court on 26.11.2002 and it was observed that the defendant was treating the litigation as a luxury and frivolous and nonmaintainable applications were being filed repeatedly.;