1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. Rule.

3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. The petitioner/establishment is aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2017, by which, the trial Court has allowed application Exhibit 33 and permitted the respondent/Municipal Corporation to file it's written statement by imposing costs of Rs.5,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously criticized the impugned order. His contentions can be summarised as under:

(a) The trial Court has committed a gross error in recalling it's no Written Statement order.

(b) Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) has been misinterpreted.

(c) Lack of due diligence on the part of the respondent, has been lost sight of.

(d) The stage in the matter was for advancing final arguments and yet the 'No written statement' order is recalled.

(e) The delay caused by the respondent is not properly explained.

(f) The respondent has deliberately caused a delay in filing the written statement.

(g) The reasons assigned for seeking vacating of the 'No written statement' order are not justifiable.

(h) Application Exhibit 33, se