JUDGMENT 1. 1. In the civil suit filed in the month of April, 2002 by the plaintiff against the defendant petitioner, the learned trial court on November 13, 2002 granted time to the defendant petitioner to file written statement and posted the case on February 21, 2003. Again 15 days time was granted to the defendant petitioner and case was adjourned to July 9, 2003 for framing the issues. When the case was posted on July 9, 2003, the learned trial court closed the filing of the written statement as it could not be filed pursuant to the order dated February 21, 2003 and instead of framing the issues the case was posted for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the defendant petitioner impugnes the order dated July 9, 2003 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Sawai Madhopur in civil suit No.56/2002. 2. It is contended on behalf of the defendant petitioner that written statement was filed on July 9, 2003, therefore interference under the supervisory jurisdiction is called for. 3. A close look at the order-sheets annexed with the petition reveals that learned trial court did not act within the bounds of its jurisdiction. How a civil case where opportunity to file written statement was given can be directly posted for framing the issues ? On February 21, 2003 when only fifteen days time was granted to file the written statement, the case ought to have been posted immediately after fifteen days for filing the written statement but the learned trial court fixed July 9, 2003 for framing the issues. 4. Strangely on July 9, 2003 filing of written statement was ordered to be dosed, despite the fact that it had been filed by the defendant petitioner on the said date. The learned trial court did not take up on itself to examine whether the amended provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code which came into force with effect from July 1, 2002, were applicable to the pending suits or not ? Why a long date of more than ninety days was given on November 13, 2002 to file the written statement ? Why before filing the written statement, the case was posted for framing the issues ? Why a long date of more than ninety days was given on November 13, 2002 to file the written statement ? Why before filing the written statement, the case was posted for framing the issues ? As these questions require answer, I am of the view that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. But at the same time the proceedings under Article 227 cannot be turned into revisional proceedings. Issuing notice to the opposite party and keep the matter pending for a long period is not justified. 5. I, therefore, remit the matter to the trial court with a direction to consider the relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code and pass the order afresh on sound judicial principles after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The questions which have been raised in the order shall be answered by the trial court while adjudicating upon the matter. The impugned order dated July 9, 2003 stands set aside. A copy of this order be sent to the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Sawai Madhopur. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above.Petition disposed of. *******