1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.8.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Karauli whereby an application moved by the plaintiff-non-petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 and 10 CPC was accepted.

2. Factual matrix relevant to the present matter is that the plaintiff-non-petitioners preferred a suit for cancellation of sale deed on 1.7.2002. After registration of the case, summons were issued on the defendant-petitioner on 3.7.2002 and the next late was fixed as 24.8.02. On the date so fixed, the defendant asked for time for filing of written statement and thereafter the matter was further adjourned for the same purpose on 3.10.2002, 21.11.2002 and 9.12.2002. On 9.12.2002, the defendant-petitioner preferred an application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 CPC stating that the plaintiff No. 1 Lohadaya died on 15.8.02 and since his legal heirs having not brought on record, thus suit abates. The application for abatement of suit was thereafter decided by the learned court below vide its order dated 5.8.04 and on rejection of the application regarding abatement of the suit, defendant-petitioner filed his written statement on the same day i.e. on 5.8.04 itself. After filing of the written statement, the matter was kept for framing of issues, however on 14.9.04 plaintiff-non-petitioners moved an application with request that written statement so filed by the defendant-petitioner should not be accepted in view of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. The detailed reply of the said application was submitted by the defendant-petitioner stating that after service of the summons, time was granted by the Court for filing of the written statement till 9.12.2002, , as the defendant was having an information about the death of plaintiff No. 1 Lohadaya and was expected an application from the plaintiffs for taking his legal heirs on record. When necessary application was not moved by the plaintiffs, the defendant-petitioner moved an application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 of CPC. Since the said application remained pending for its decision for a period of 8 to 9 months, the written statement could not be filed as the defendant was convinced that the suit will abate as necessary steps were not taken by the plaintiffs to bring legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff No. 1, however when the application moved under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 was finally dismissed by the Court on 5.8.04, on the same date written statement was filed and on the said date no objection was raised by the plaintiffs.

3. The learned Court below has considered factual aspects as narrated above and came to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, the period for filing of written statement is only of 30 days, however with the permission of the Court, the same can be extended till 90 days from the date of service of summons after recording its reasons by the court. The learned Court considering this provision came to the conclusion that when the summons were served on the defendant on 12.7.02 and the defendant was to put in his appearance on 24.8.02 then on the said day itself the written statement should have been filed, however, defendant failed to file written statement till 5.8.04 and reason for delay in filing of the written statement is not bona fide or satisfactory, thus right of the defendant to file written statement was closed inasmuch as the learned court below refused to take the written statement on record and the matter was kept for evidence of the plaintiffs.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is not sustainable inasmuch as if valuable right of filing of the written statement has been closed in view of the fact that written statement already filed is not allowed to be taken on record despite of the fact that detailed reasons for non filing of written statement till 5.8.04 was given in the r