The court emphasized expediency and the pending nature of the suit in reaching its decision.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. After some arguments, learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that this Court may pass an order on consent.

2. This would be without prejudice to the rights and contention of either of the parties and in the interest of expediency, as submitted by Mr. Rajat Aneja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. In view of the submissions made and the joint statement given by the learned counsel above, this Court directs as under :

(a) The impugned order is set aside, and the amended written statement be filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today and the same shall be taken on record by the learned Trial Court.

(b) Under instructions from the respondent, and on the statement of Mr. Rajat Aneja, the original replication would be treated as the replication to the amended written statement for all purposes.

(c) The Trial Court shall take up the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC of the respondent/plaintiff for hearing on 21.03.2023 and endeavour to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months.

(d) Subject to the outcome of the application under Order 12 Rule 6, further proceedings in the trial Court be conducted expeditiously, keeping in view that the suit is pending since the year 2013.

4. In view of the above directions, the present petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

5. It goes without saying that all contentions are open for both the parties before the learned Trial Court.

6. There shall be no infraction of the timelines so directed. If there is a failure to adhere to the timelines, it shall automatically entail disentitlement granted above.