JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The defendant from Regular Civil Suit No. 50/1989 filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambad, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 30-4-1992. On 29-4-1992, the present petitioner No. 1 defendant filed application that he was sick and, therefore, he could not give instructions to his Advocate and, therefore, he could not file written statement in the matter. However, he had filed written statement in the matter and that be taken on record by setting aside the order of no written statement. The plaintiff objected this application and then the learned IInd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambad, rejected the application relying on the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of (Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others)1, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 993. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the facts of that case are quite different than the facts of the present case and, therefore, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court cannot be made applicable to the present matter. The learned Civil Judge erred in dismissing the application on the basis of the ruling of the Supreme Court. The written statement ought to have been accepted. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent argues that the matter was fixed for judgment and there was no occasion for filing written statement at that stage. So, the learned Civil Judge has rightly relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court to dismiss the application. She has also pointed out that the reason given for accepting written statement was not genuine and proper. There was no document in support of the contention that he was sick and, therefore, he could not file written statement in time. So, on both counts, the application ought to have been rejected. The order need not be interfered by the High Court. 4. In the matter before the Supreme Court, in Arjun Singh's case (cited supra), after recording ex parte evidence, the matter was fixed for judgment and, therefore, the Apex Court held that the provisions of Order IX, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could not be made applicable. In the present case also, from the application filed on record by the defendant, it appears that the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded on affidavit and the matter was fixed for judgment. In the present case also, from the application filed on record by the defendant, it appears that the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded on affidavit and the matter was fixed for judgment. So, the Court had no occasion to consider the application for taking the written statement on record. The only stage remained in that suit was to pronounce the judgment and the ruling of the Apex Court is aptly applicable to the present matter. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the ruling of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of (Western Coalfields Ltd., through General Manager (Planning), Nagpur v. Rajkumar Kanhiyalal Bhiwapurkar others)2, 1986 Mh.L.J. 525. However, para 9 of this judgment is very much relevant which reads as follows : "In fact even after the Court proceeds in the absence of written statement and fixes the case for proof of allegations of the plaint by the plaintiff and the defendant appears on that day, the Court can permit filing of written statement acting under the provisions of section 148 and that would be deemed to have been extended. This is what was done in (Menomal Khushaldas v. Gangadhar Rai)3, 1982 Mh.L.J. 188. But the said order of the trial Court, permitting filing of written statement was set aside by the learned Single Judge construing the provisions of Order 8, Rule 5(2) as above." 6. The Division Bench of this Court had made it clear that if the suit is fixed for recording evidence and, at that time, defendant comes before the Court with a prayer that his written statement be admitted on record, the Court may take written statement on record. However, this ruling nowhere states that when the matter is fixed for judgment, the Court can take the written statement on record and, therefore, the ruling of the Supreme Court, referred to above, is applicable aptly to the present case. In the present case, the application was rightly rejected by the learned Civil Judge. 7. Hence, Civil Revision Application No. 713/1992 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated. The petitioners to pay costs of this proceedings to the respondent. Civil Revision Application dismissed. -----