Defendants 3(a) and 3(b) before the trial court in O.S.No.4825/1999 are questioning the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the XIth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, whereunder the interlocutory application filed under Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure by these defendants seeking leave to file written statement came to be dismissed.

2. The facts in nutshell are as follows: A suit O.S.No.4825/1999 came to be filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking a direction to the first defendant to execute and register absolute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and other consequential reliefs. On service of notice defendants appeared and time was sought to file the written statement. The second defendant has not filed the written statement. On 06.08.2006 third defendant expired and on 17.07.2007 the legal representatives of third defendant were brought on record and matter came to be adjourned for filing of the written statement to 17.08.2007 and thereafter to 17.09.2007. Thereafterwards two adjournments were granted by the trial court to defendants 3(a) and 3(b) to file the written statement. Inspite of sufficient opportunity having been given the defendants 3(a) and 3(b) did not file the written statement. On 04.12.2008 an application under Order 8 Rule 1 came to be filed seeking permission to file written statement. The said application came to be resisted by the plaintiffs contending inter alia that parents of applicants i.e., second and third defendant had not filed the written statement and hence these defendants cannot have a better right than what second and third defendant possessed and accordingly sought for rejection of the application. On these grounds amongst others they sought for rejection of the application.

3. The trial court considering the delay aspect rejected the application and it is this order which is now impugned in the present writ petition.

4. I have heard Sri.T.Subbanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.B.V. Vidyulatha for petitioner and Sri.G.Manivannan, learned Counsel appearing for the caveator respondent No.2.

5. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that only ground on which the trial court had dismissed the application is on the ground of delay namely delay of 1 year 5 ½ months from the date of defendants 3(a) and 3(b) came on record. He would submit that delay had occasioned on account of a criminal case said to have been filed by defendant No.3 (a) against her husband at Hyderabad and she was engaged in getting the same transferred to Bangalore and as such the written statement could not filed. In support of his submission he relies upon the following decisions: 1) AIR 1972 SC 2526 J.C. Chatterjee and Others vs. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon And Another 2) AIR 1983 SC 354 State of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs. K. Anil Kumar Etc., 3) ILR 2003 Kar 2459 A.V. Purushotam vs M.K. Nagaraj 4) 2008 AIR SCW 2739 Zolba vs. Keshao And Others

6. Per contra Sri.Manivannan, learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that parents of defendants 3(a) and 3(b) i.e., second and third defendant had not filed the written statement and infact she was denied the permission to file written statement against which she had filed W.P.No.10843/2003 which was rejected by this Court and as such he would contend that what right second and third defendant did not possess same could not be pressed into service by the legal heirs of defendant No.3 and as such he supports the order passed by the trial court and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. He would also rely upon the decision in the case of Vidyawati vs. Man Mohan and Others reported in AIR 1995 SC Pg 1653 and Ramgopal and Another vs. Khiv Raj And Others reported in AIR 1998 Rajasthan Pg 98 in support of his submission.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the order passed by the trial court, it is seen the grandson which trial court had rejected the claim of de