RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CM No. 27299/2017 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM (M) No. 812/2017 & CM No. 27300/2017 (for stay)

3. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 1st July, 2017 of the Court of District & Session Judge , Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi as under:

“01.07.2017

Present:

Plaintiff – by Sh. Devanshu Jain, Adv.

Defendant – by Sh. K.D. Singh, Adv. seeks time.

Declined since WS not filed despite opportunities.

Put up for PE by 23.08.2017.”

4. The order aforesaid does not disclose any reason whatsoever for purportedly closing the right of the petitioner/defendant to file written statement and in fact does not even close the right to file written statement and does not strike off the defence of the petitioner/defendant and does not give any reason in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as to why the suit was not being decreed immediately or why the need for requiring the respondent/plaintiff to lead evidence was felt, as the order should in law. Reference in this regard may be made to Balraj Taneja vs. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396,