ORDER S.M.N. Raina, J. The plaintiffs non-applicants filed a suit against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 649/- inclusive of interest on the basis of a document dated 18-3-1968 in favour of their deceased father as his legal representatives. As the suit was instituted in a Court of Small Causes it was fixed for final disposal on 10-1-1969. On 10-1-1969 the applicant was given time to file written statement subject to payment of Rs. 4 as costs, and the case was adjourned to 21-2-1969. On 21-2-1969 as the applicant failed to file his written statement the Court decreed the claim of the plaintiffs under Order 8, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by this decree the applicant has filed this revision petition. The order of the learned trial Judge is patently erroneous. Rule 10 of Order 8, Civil Procedure Code must be read with rule 9 of the said Order. The words "so required" in rule 10 clearly refer to a written statement required by the Code under rule 9 of Order 8, Civil Procedure Code. Rule 9 lays down that the Court may at any time require written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same. The written statement contemplated by this rule is one that may be required by the Court after the written statement of the defendant is filed. Thus Order 8 rule 10 is not attracted where the defendant fails to file his first written statement, even though he may have been given time to do so at his own request. In Nagaratnam Pillai v. Kamlathammal AIR 1945 Mad. 299 it was held that rule 10 relates only to rule 9 and cannot be taken to relate to rule 1. The Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to pronounce judgment under rule 10 of Order 8 against the defendant who has failed to file his written statement. This decision was followed in Misc. (first) Appeal No. 76/58 decided on 31-8-1959. A similar view was expressed in Deokishandas v. Union of India 1961 MPLJ 53 : 1961 JLJ 163 (Civil Revision No. 376 of 1960 decided on 6-1-1971 (Jabalpur S B). This decision was followed in Misc. (first) Appeal No. 76/58 decided on 31-8-1959. A similar view was expressed in Deokishandas v. Union of India 1961 MPLJ 53 : 1961 JLJ 163 (Civil Revision No. 376 of 1960 decided on 6-1-1971 (Jabalpur S B). The trial Court was, therefore, in error in proceeding to pronounce judgment under Order 8, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code merely because the defendant has failed to file his written statement. It is obvious that no direction to file a written statement was given to the defendant applicant in this case as required by rule 9 of Order 8, Civil Procedure Code. The Court had no jurisdiction therefore, to proceed under Order 8, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. It may also be pointed out that the Court failed to take notice of the fact that the plaintiffs non-applicants could not obtain a decree without obtaining a succession certificate. This point was even conceded by the learned counsel for the non-applicant. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order and the decree passed by the trial Court are hereby set aside. I make no order as to costs of this petition because it appears that the impugned order was not passed at the instance of the plaintiffs-non-applicants. Petition allowed