322/2005 affirming the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge whereby and whereunder while rejecting the application filed by the appellant herein under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a date was fixed for recording the evidence of the plaintiffs and the application filed by the respondents herein praying for companydoning the delay in filing the written statement was rejected.
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 20.9.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents herein questioning the validity of an order dated 29.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mathura in Civil Revision No.
On or about 31.1.2005, the appellant also filed an application before the learned trial Judge for pronouncing judgment in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, on the premise that the defendants respondents did number file any written statement.
2 A Revision Petition was filed by the respondents which by reason of an order dated 29.8.2007 was dismissed by the learned District Judge.
However, on 23.9.2005, as indicated hereinbefore by reason of an order dated 24.10.2005, while rejecting the said application of the respondent, the trial Judge allowed the plaintiff to examine his own witnesses in support of his case.
It is neither in doubt number in dispute that the defendants respondents filed applications for extension of time for filing written statement number of times.
Appellant herein filed a suit for a decree for permanent injunction in the year 2002.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition, directing Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be permitted to companytest the suit on merit.
It is on the same date the defendants filed an application for filing written statement.
A separate application 1 for grant of temporary injunction was also filed.
Appellant filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which was rejected on 28.1.2004.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst which was disposed of by an order dated 14.5.2004.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the respondents filed a Writ Petition which was marked as CMWP No.
Leave granted.
45197/2007 before the High Court.
The defendants appeared through their learned advocate on 19.7.2002.
Summons upon the defendants were served on 6.7.2002.
The matter was also adjourned on one ground or the other.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
