JUDGMENT
N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This revision petition is against the orders dated 19.9.1994 and 1.12.1994 passed by Sub Judge I Class, Taran Taran whereby petitioners’ evidence was struck off and the application for review/modification of the order too met the same fate. It is the case of the petitioners that infact two opportunities were granted to the petitioners i.e. on 2.9.1994 and 19.9.1994 for filing written statement. As a matter of fact the written statement was ready but the same did not bear the signatures of the defendant as he was ill and so in these circumstances, Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement. Even the application filed for review/modification of the order has been dismissed by not properly construing the judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as of the apex Court. In any case, the matter being at the initial stage i.e. evidence is yet to be led by the plaintiffs, it would be in the fitness of the case that one more opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file written statement even on payment of costs.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents seriously contested the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that infact the petitioners were served for 9.2.1994 and as per requirement of law they were duty bound to file the written statement on the date they put in appearance in the Court. The case was adjourned to 21.4:1994, yet the petitioners did not file the written statement and infact they had been delaying the proceedings and not complying with the requirements of law and so the Court had no option but to order for striking of the defence. The orders passed by the Court are perfectly just and legal in the circumstances of the case and the jurisdiction having been exercised does not call for any interference.
3. It have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. There is no denying the fact that as per requirements of law, the petitioners were to file the written statement on the date for which they had been served. Thus the petitioners infact did not comply with the directions of the Court. All the same one cannot lose site of the fact that the trial Court in its interim orders no where directed the defendants to file the written statement. Perhaps for the reasons that other defendants were yet to be served and it is only on 28.7.1994 that specific order was passed calling upon the defendants to file the written statement on or before 2.9.1994. Since the written statement was not filed on 2.9.1994 the case was adjourned to 19.9.1994, on which date the defence was struck off. Thus, in the circumstances of the case infact only two opportunities were granted. Since the case is at the initial stage, I find it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and grant one more opportunity to the Petitioners to file written Statement, which is, however, subject to payment of Rs. 1500/- as costs, inclusive of Rs. 1,000/- already deposited in the Registry of this Court. The amount deposited in the Registry be sent to the trial Court to be paid to the Plaintiffs-respondents. Petitioners are, however, directed to file the written statement positively on the next date of hearing i.e. 28.2.1995.