The duty of the court to proceed further with the case despite the non-filing of the written statement within a reasonable time.

1. The petitioners have assailed an order dated 20th August 2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge dismissing an application of the petitioners for extension of time for filing written statement.

.2. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit for declaration, injunction and specific performance in 1994. After defendants were served, some of the defendants were proceeded ex parte. However, defendants No.1, 2 and 3 put appearance and made an application under Order Section 10 and Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC for stay of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had filed an earlier suit qua same property and plaintiff was bound to claim all the reliefs at one go while filing earlier suit. This suit was not maintainable under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. The other ground taken was that since the property involved was the same and issues and the parties were same, this suit should be stayed. However, this application remained pending for years together and was not decided by this Court. The earlier suit was pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge and in the mean time this Court transferred to itself the suit pending before the Court of ADJ. An order for trial of the two suits together was made. The plaintiff also made a statement in the Court on 7th April 1997 that in suit bearing number 202 of 1993 pending before the Court of ADJ, an interim order of injunction against the defendant restraining them from transferring, alienating and parting with possession of the property had already been passed and if the interim injunction was allowed in this case, the plaintiff would withdraw the suit pending before the Court of ADJ. Counsel for the defendants No.2 and 3 were agreeable to this course to be adopted. However, defendant No.1 was not available on that day and the matter got posted to next date for his appearance.

3. By an order of this Court, the suit bearing number 202 of 1993 was summoned to this Court; however, the same was not received till 1999. In the meantime, defendant No.1 had died and an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record the Lrs of defendant No.1 was made which was allowed on 7th February 2000 and thereafter an order for issuing notice to the newly added Lrs of the deceased defendant was made. However, since notice could not be served for want of addresses, fresh orders were made for service. Even the amended memo of parties was not filed in the suit by the plaintiff till May, 2002. In October 2002 again time was sought for filing amended memo of parties which was allowed subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. In 2003, the jurisdiction of the Court of Additional District Judge was raised to Rs.20 lac. Since this suit was of the value below Rs.20 lac, the same was ordered to be transferred to the District Judge by this Court in December 2003. After the file was sent to the District Court, it was informed that defendants No.2, 3 and 5 filed the written statements. On 2nd September 2004, learned ADJ observed that in view of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1, written statement cannot be taken on record and thereafter the petitioner made an application under Order 8 of CPC for filing written statement which was dismissed vide impugned order by the Court below.

.4. The instant case shows a sorry state of affairs as to how the case was proceeded before this Court. The case continued for about 10 years in this Court without bringing the written statement on record either because of statement made by the plaintiff that she will withdrew the suit or because the plaintiff did not file amended memo of parties itself for more than two year and did not furnish the address of Lrs of defendant No.1. The proceedings in this case itself would show that there were exceptional circumstances due to which the written statement was not filed in this case. There is no doubt that written statement should have been filed within a reasonable time, but the defendants in this case had taken the