Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner/defendant put in appearance before the trial Court on 08.11.2005 and on the same day, submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was rejected by the trial Court on 21.08.2006 and the case was fixed for further proceedings, instead of passing any order that what for the case has been fixed. On 28.08.2006, the petitioner submitted written statement and on the same day, the plaintiff submitted an application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC obviously for passing the decree and objecting to the petitioner filing written statement after delay. This application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC remained pending upto 20.04.2007 and on 20.04.2007, the trial Court ordered taking out of the record the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. It is clear from the facts mentioned above that the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the trial Court did not close the written statement of the petitioner on expiry of 30 days nor the plaintiff raised any objection against the non -filing of the written statement by the defendant. The defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed only on 21.08.2006 and on that day also, the trial Court did not order for closing the right of defendant to file written statement. On the next day, the defendant filed the written statement and thereafter, the matter was adjourned on passing the order on application filed by the plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and about the fate of written statement filed by the defendant. There was no reason for the trial Court to order taking out of the record the written statement filed by the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court should have condoned the delay in filing the written statement because of the reason that the trial Court itself specifically kept the case pending for hearing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and did not choose to pass the order closing the right of the defendant in filing the written statement.
(3.) IN view of the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dt. 20.04.2007 is set aside and the written statement is taken on record on payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/ - which shall be paid either to the plaintiff or deposited by the defendant in the trial Court within a period of one month from today.;