Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:—

I.A. No.16810/2012 (of defendants u/O 8 R-1 CPC) & I.A. No.5281/2012 (of plaintiff u/O 8 R-10 CPC)

1. The counsel for the defendants seeks adjournment. On being asked the reason, he states that his vehicle was stolen on 24th January, 2013 and the file of this suit went along with the vehicle and he will have to re-construct the file.

2. The counsel has been asked as to why on 24th January, 2013 he was carrying the file of this suit which was not listed on that date and was vide order dated 26th November, 2012 posted for today.

3. The counsel for the defendants states that some of his files remain in his car.

4. The aforesaid explanation is not found satisfactory. The request for adjournment is rejected.

5. The counsel for the defendants states that he does not want to argue the applications today.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff has been heard.

7. Vide order dated 27th March, 2012, the written statement filed by the defendants was ordered to be taken off from the records for the reason of having been filed after a gap of 390 days and 400 days respectively and without any application for condonation of delay.

8. The defendants thereafter filed I.A. No.1681