( 1 ) LEAVE granted. 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. 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 condoning the delay in filing the written statement was rejected.

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.

( 3 ) APPELLANT herein filed a suit for a decree for permanent injunction in the year 2002. A separate application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. Summons upon the defendants were served on 6. 7. 2002. The defendants appeared through their learned advocate on 19. 7. 2002.

( 4 ) 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. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that the defendants-respondents filed applications for extension of time for filing written statement number of times. The matter was also adjourned on one ground or the other.

( 5 ) 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 not file any written statement. It is on the same date the defendants filed an application for filing written statement. No application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement was, however, filed.

( 6 ) 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.

( 7 ) 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.

( 8 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the respondents filed a Writ Petition which was marked as CMWP No. 45197/2007 before the High court. 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 contest the suit on merit. In view of the aforesaid, the order of the trial court refusing to keep the written statement on record is set aside. The written statement shall be kept on the record and the defendant-petitioner shall be permitted to contest the matter on merit subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be deposited by the defendant-petitioner in favour of the plaintiff by means of a bank draft within two weeks. The amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the plaintiff. The writ petition is allowed. "

( 9 ) MR. R. S. Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that keeping in view the fact that the summons upon the defendants were served on 6. 7. 2002 and no step having been taken to file written statement for a period of three years and only on 31. 5. 2005, an application for filing written statement having been filed, the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment.

( 10 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that from a perusal of the order-sheet before the trial Court, it would appear that dates after dates were fixed for filing written statement and, furthermore, having r