G.R.Majithia, J.

1. The petitioner has come up in revision against the order dated July 19, 1989 whereby its defence was struck off.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection. He submits that the defence was struck off by the trial Court by an order dated 5-12-1988 but the State applied for recalling fine order dated 6-1 1989 and there is no order of that date on the file.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent has also taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the revision petition. The objection is misconceived. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is not circumscribed by any limitation. The power conferred under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution are unfettered by any, limitation. In the instant case, there is a lapse on the part of the State for not filing the written statement with promptitude. The delay on the part of the State might have compelled the Subordinate Judge to close the defence but once the State had moved an application for permission to file the written statement, the permission ought to hate been accorded after burdening it with costs as the situation warrant