A Trial Court has the discretion under O. 8, R. 10, Civil P. C. to accept the written statement even at the stage when the ex parte hearing was concluded and the court had fixed a date for delivery of judgment.

( 1 ) A very short but important question of law has arisen in this Civil Revision, namely, whether the Trial Court has the power to entertain the written statement filed by the defendant, after the Trial Court completed the ex parte hearing of the suit and adjourned the matter for delivery of judgement. The facts which are necessary for deciding this question are stated as follows : -

( 2 ) THE petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 1958 of 1980 before the learned Judge IXth Bench in the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The said suit was against the Corporation of Calcutta and others, inter alia, for a declaration that the defendant is entitled to the renewal of building plan from Calcutta Corporation and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from interfering with the right of the petitioner to undertake the construction in accordance with renewed sanctioned plan in respect of the premises in suit and for a mandatory injunction to renew the said plan and for other reliefs. Even though the opposite parties were given several opportunities to file the written statement, even after the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing for the first time on December 11, 1980, the defendants did not file the written statement. The time was allowed from time to time till 29th January, 1982 for filing the written statement as a last chance. On 29th January, 1982 the opposite parties filed another application for time to file the written statement. The learned Judge rejected the said application and fixed 11th March, 1982 for ex parte hearing. Then on 28th April, 1982 the plaintiff's witness 1 was examined in part. On 29th April, 1982 the petitioner filed an application for recalling witness 1 for further examination and the learned Trial Judge fixed 11th June, 1982 for further examination of the plaintiff witness 1. On 11th June, 1982 the defendants filed a petition for time to file a written statement. The learned Trial Judge fixed 12th July, 1982 for hearing that petition after service of the copy of the said application to the petitioner. On July 12, 1982 the learned Trial Judge allowed the defendant to file written statement till 16-7-82. When on 16-7-82 the defendants did not file the written statement and again filed the application for time. His application was rejected and the petitioner's witness 1 was examined further. Thereafter ex parte hearing of the suit was closed on that date and the judgement was reserved on 26th July, 1982 and the learned Trial Judge again fixed July 30, 1982 for delivery of judgement. On July 29, 1982 the opposite parties filed a written statement and the learned Trial Judge fixed on July 30, 1982 for orders. On that day the defendant filed a petition praying for condonation of delay to file written statement and the trial Judge fixed August 29, 1982 for orders in presence of the lawyers of both sides regarding the acceptance of the written statement : The matter was again adjourned till December 10, 1982 and on that date the aforesaid application for acceptance of the written statement was taken up for hearing and the Trial Judge directed that the written statement filed by the defendant will be accepted after service of the copy of the written statement and for that purpose the learned Trial Judge fixed 11-1-83 to serve the copy of the written statement. The petitioner filed an application on December 10, 1982 praying for consideration of the documents : filed by him. The learned Trial Judge did not pass any order on the said application. Thereafter on 11-1-1983 the petitioner filed an application for stay of operation of the order No. 27 dated 10-12-82 but the said application was not also disposed of. The petitioner have moved this Court by filing this application under S. 115, Civil P. C. , on 28th January, 1983 and obtained this rule. Mr. D. K. Sengupta, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted only one point.