V.M. Jain, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the defendants against the order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the learned trial Court vide which the defence of defendants 5 (a), 5 (b), 5 (c) and 6 was struck off for the reason that written statement was not filed within time.

2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition, are that Pankaj Sharma plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction etc. against defendants No. 1 to 6. The said suit was filed on 14.10.2004. Vide order dated 15.10.2004, notice in the said suit was ordered to be issued to the defendants for 4.11.2004. On 4.11.2004, the Assistant District Attorney had appeared on behalf of defendants 5(a), 5(b) and 6 while the learned counsel had appeared on behalf of defendant 5(c) and no one had appeared on behalf of defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 despite service and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte and the case was adjourned to 3.12.2004 for the service of defendant No. 2 who was unserved and the defendants, who were represented by their counsel, were directed to file their written statement on the next date. On 3.12.2004 time was prayed for filing written statement, which was granted and the case was adjourned to 14.1.2005 for the service of defendant No. 2 and for the written statement by the defendants, who were represented by their counsel. It appears that on 14.1.2005, the trial Court was not holding the Court and the case was adjourned to 25.2.2005 by a separate order (which does not appear to be on the trial Court file). On 25.2.2005, the trial Court noticed that written statement on behalf of defendants 5 (a), 5(b) and 6, which was being adopted by defendant 5(c), had been filed in the Court. However, since the counsel for the plaintiff raised objection to the effect that written statement had been filed after the expiry of 90 days, the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.2.2005 struck off the defence of defendants 5(a), 5(b), 5(c) and 6 on the ground that written statement had not been filed within time and adjourned the case to 28.3.2005 for service of defendant No. 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 25.2.2005 passed by the trial Court, the aggrieved defendants filed the present revision petition in this Court.

3. Vide order dated 30.3.2005, notice in the present revision petition was ordered to be issued to plaintiff-respondent No. 1 only and further proceedings before the trial Court were ordered to remain stayed. Records were also sent for.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioners submitted before me that the trial Court had erred in law in striking off the defence of the defendant-petitioners on the ground that written statement had not been filed within time. It was submitted that in fact the Courts were closed for winter vacations from 17.1.2005 to 15.2.2005 and as such the written statement was filed on the opening date i.e. on 16.2.2005 as would be clear from the endorsement on the written statement and as such the written statement on behalf of the defendant-petitioners had been filed in the court within 90 days. It was submitted that considering that the written statement had been filed within 90 days (after excluding the time when the Courts remained closed during winter vacations), no case was made out for striking off the defence of the petitioners on the ground that written statement had not been filed within time.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondent No. 1 submitted before me that no case was made out for extending the time granted for filing written statement and in any case, time could not be extended without there being any application on record filed by the defendants seeking extension of time upto 90 days and the time could not be granted beyond 90 days. Reliance was placed on the case