JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Order refusing to recall an earlier order is the subject matter of this Civil Revision. 2. Petitioner filed an application for being added as a party which was allowed by order dated 4-8-1981 and time was granted to file the written statement on 17-8-1981. Petitioner applied for extension of time to file the written statement which was rejected and the addition of Petitioner as a party was also recalled. On 24-8-1981 which was not a date fixed for the suit Petitioner filed an application for recalling the older dated 17-8-1981. Neither any application for advancing the date was filed nor copy of the application for recalling the earlier order was served on the Plaintiff. Along with the application, the written statement was filed by the Petitioner. On 1-9-1981 the written statement was not accepted and the order was also not recalled and the suit was decreed. 3. The only ground on which the Petitioner was struck off the record as a party was that she had not filed any written statement as directed. There is no provision in the CPC that name of a person is to be removed from, record as a party if he does not file the written statement. This amounts to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity and the order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 4. Mr. Deepak Misra, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff opposite parties submitted that the suit having been decreed, the interim .order ought not to be interfered with since the Petitioner could have preferred an appeal against the decree where the impugned order could have been challenged u/s 105, CPC read with Order 43, Rule 1-A, CPC If the Petitioner would have continued as a party in the suit, I would not have interfered with the impugned order since she would have a right of appeal where the impugned order could have been challenged. Having been taken out of the record as a party, the right of appeal was taken away. Thus, the prejudice to the Petitioner cannot be removed unless the order is set aside. 5. The effect of setting aside the impugned order would be that the Petitioners would have the right to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Plaintiff. Having been taken out of the record as a party, the right of appeal was taken away. Thus, the prejudice to the Petitioner cannot be removed unless the order is set aside. 5. The effect of setting aside the impugned order would be that the Petitioners would have the right to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Plaintiff. A party has right to cross-examine the witnesses even without filing a written statement to disprove the Plaintiff?s case even though he has no case of his own. Accordingly, to give this opportunity, the decree is to be set aside as a consequence. Once the decree is set aside and the matter is being remitted to the trial court, the interest of justice would be best served in case the written statement filed by the Petitioner is accepted. 6. Plaintiff is not responsible for the impugned order. Non-filing of the written statement in time by the Petitioner has the ultimate result of prolonged litigation. A decree which has already been passed has been set aside. This grievance of the Plaintiff can be mitigated in case the Petitioners pay the Plaintiffs a cost of Rs. 250/- (two hundred fifty) within one month from today. In case, the cost is not paid the decree already passed shall be sustained. In case, the cost is paid the suit shall be heard afresh taking into consideration the evidence already in record. The Petitioners and the Plaintiffs who have appeared in this Court shall appear in the trial court on 1st of May, 1987 on which day the Court will fix the date of hearing being satisfied that the cost has either been paid or deposited. 7. In the result the civil revision is allowed. Subject to the aforesaid direction there shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed