1. The petitioners/defendants filed the present writ petitions against the order dated 01.08.2017 on I.A.No.6 made in O.S.No.6525/2012 dismissing the application for permission to file the written statement.

2. The respondent, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court filed the suit for declaration of title and to direct the defendants to vacate the portion of the land in their respective possession by demolishing the illegal construction put up in the suit schedule property and further in the event, the defendants fail to demolish the illegal structure and vacate the property, the plaintiff may be permitted to demolish the illegal structure at the cost of the defendants in the presence of a Commissioner appointed by the Hon’ble Court, contending that the plaintiff is the owner in possession by virtue of the acquisition made by the Government acquiring large extent of 120 acres 36 guntas in favour of the plaintiff/Society for the purpose of formation of residential layout and the original owners have received compensation. The present defendants are subsequent purchasers and they have no right with the property of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for relief sought for.

3. There are 79 defendants in the main suit and some of the defendants have filed written statement and the present petitioners/defendants have not filed written statement. Therefore, the trial Court posted the matter for plaintiff’s evidence. At that stage, the present petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file written statement by condoning the delay and contended that after filing Vakalath, they have applied for some documents from the concerned authorities namely, BDA, BBMP and High Court and the said authorities have not given documents sought for within the time. In the meantime, the other defendants negotiated with the plaintiff to settle the dispute in respect of their sites. It is further contended that the plaintiff and some other defendants have entered into compromise and compromise was reported before the Court behind the back of the present defendants. The matter was adjourned for several dates of hearing for settlement between the plaintiff and present defendants and in fact there were several proposal to compromise the matter between the plaintiff and defendants in respect of the property owned by them. In view of several stages being changed from time to time, in the process of delay in getting required documents, the defendants were unable to file written statement within the time. The defendants submits that delay is bonafide and not intentional. Therefore, they sought for permission to file written statement.

4. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff contending that in view of the amended provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, the maximum time limit is 90 days to file written statement. They have not filed the same within the time. The reasons explained for delay is not sufficient and absolutely no reasons are assigned and most of the defendants have compromised the matter between the plaintiff. Though sufficient time was granted, present petitioners/defendants have not filed written statement. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for dismissal of the application.

5. The trial Court considering the application and objections, by the impugned order dated 01.08.2017 dismissed the application mainly on the ground that there is a delay of 3½ years in filing the application and the application is filed with an intention to protract the proceedings. Hence, these writ petitions are filed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

7. Miss. Rakshitha D.J., learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application for permission to file written statement is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. T