JUDGMENT 1. 1. Invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the defendant petitioner seek to quash the impugned order dated August 13, 2003 whereby the written statements filed by them were ordered to be removed out of the record by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) No.2, Beawar (Ajmer) in civil suit No.17/1998. It appears from the record that plaintiffs in the civil suit sought declaration in regard to agricultural land. The service of summons was effected on the defendants petitioners on February 26, 1998 and they moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 Civil Procedure Code for rejecting the plaint on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in the civil Court. On November 4, 1999 the application was rejected and suit was posted for filing the written statement. The case thereafter was adjourned from time to time. On August 1, 2003 and August 2, 2003 the defendants petitioners filed written statement, on the basis of oral objection of the plaintiffs the written statements were ordered to be removed from record. 2. After having heard the submissions urged in support of the writ petition, I am of the opinion that before taking decision of removal of written statements from record, it was incumbent on the learned trial court to first decide whether the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code (which were substituted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 2002 (Act of 2002) were applicable to those cases which were pending prior to promulgation of the said Amendment Act. In the instant case where the service of summons was already effected on February 26, 1998 and many opportunities were granted to the defendants to file written statements, could the time limit of ninety days as provided in Order 8 Rule 1, be fixed ? As these legal questions remained unanswered, the impugned order is not sustainable. 3. The proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, in my opinion, cannot be turned into the forum of revision. It is for the trial court to exercise its jurisdiction properly and on sound judicial principles after hearing the opposite party. 4. I, therefore remit the case to the trial court with a direction to decide expeditiously the oral objection of plaintiff in regard to removal of written statements from the record, afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the opposite parties. 4. I, therefore remit the case to the trial court with a direction to decide expeditiously the oral objection of plaintiff in regard to removal of written statements from the record, afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the opposite parties. The learned trial court is expected to adjudicate upon the legal question whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2002 which came into force with effect from July 1, 2002 in regard to filing of written statement, can be made applicable to the pending suits where service of summons had already been effected and time limit of ninety days had been expired. 5. The impugned order dated August 13, 2003 stands set aside. A copy of this order be sent to Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) No.2 Beawar (Ajmer).Petition disposed of. *******