JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the Order dated 24th November, 1982 of the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Jaipur City (West), Jaipur who under the aforesaid order, dismissed the application presented before him by the State, the petitioner herein for recalling the order made under Order 8 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code and allowed an opportunity to file written statement. A suit was filed against the State in the trial Court and the State had been served on 25th February, 1980. Thereafter four adjournments were sought on behalf of the State by 26.2.80, 13.3.80, 25.3 80 and 14. .80 respectively for filing written statement. Thereafter appellant State did not put appearance and an ex-parte order was made against it Later on the said ex-parte order was set aside and the case was adjourned for filing written statement As many as five adjournments were granted for 17.2.81, 13.3.81, 20.4.81, 25.3.81 & 21.4.81 respectively. But still the written statement had not been filed by the petitioner State. The learned Court below granted two opportunities, i. e. first on 16th May, 1981 on payment of Rs. 25/- as cost and again on 9.7.81 on payment of Rs. 25/-as cost. Then the case was adjourned on 6th August, 1981. But on that date no written statement was filed. Therefore, the trial court made an order under Order 8 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code closing the defence of the State. 2. An application was fled by the petitioner State under Order(?) Rule(?) C. P. C. before the learned trial court and the learned court under its Order dated 24.11.82 dismissed the same. 3. The contention of Mr. Mathur, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the State is that on 6th August, 1991 the written statement could not be presented because there were heavy floods, Engineer was busy in meeting the situation. As already has been stated earlier it would be clear that many opportunities were given to the State. But the State did not file any written statement. Therefore. it cannot be said that the order of the learned trial Court in exercise its jurisdiction under Order 8 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was against Law. This provision is discretionary. As already has been stated earlier it would be clear that many opportunities were given to the State. But the State did not file any written statement. Therefore. it cannot be said that the order of the learned trial Court in exercise its jurisdiction under Order 8 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was against Law. This provision is discretionary. In this case, generally a revision w.ll not be entertained An order made under Order 8 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code does not bar the defendant to contest the suit. The defendant petitioner could have appeared and could have taken part in these proceedings though its right to file a written statement had lapsed. It does not appear in the present case that the order made by the trial court is without jurisdiction. An order might not have been passed and the other order might have been passed, but it was proper exercise of its jurisdiction and an erroneous decision in proper exercise of jurisdiction is not the same thing as "exercise of jurisdiction not vested by Law". I find no reason to interfere with the Order passed by the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate I Class, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 4. The revision petition is dismissed with the above observations.Revision petition dismissed. *******