JUDGMENT 1. - Invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the 1 Constitution of India, the defendant petitioner seek to quash the impugned order dated September 5, 2003 whereby the written statement filed by him was not taken on record by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bijai Nagar (Ajmer). It appears that service of summons on the petitioner was effected on January 24, 2002 and the case was posted on September 5, 2003 for filing written statement. On this date the written statement was filed by the petitioner but the plaintiff respondent raised objection not to take written statement on record. The objection of the plaintiff respondent was allowed and the impugned order came to be passed and to the case was posted on October 10, 2003 for recording evidence of the plaintiff. 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 statement from record, it was incumbent on the learned trial court to first f5 decide whether the provisions of Order 8 Rule I CPC (which were substituted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act of 21)02) 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 January 24, 2001 and many opportunities were granted 1( the defendant to file written statement, could the time limit of ninety days a 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 statement 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 CPC (Amendment) Act 2002. The learned trial court is expected to adjudicate upon the legal question whether the provisions of the CPC (Amendment) Act 2002. which came into force with effect from July I, 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. The scope of Order 8 Rule a CPC shall also be taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge at the time of deciding objections. 5. The impugned order dated September 5, 2003 stands set aside. Copy of this order be sent to the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bijaynagar (Distt. Ajmer). The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bijai Nagar (Distt. Ajmer) on October 21, 2003 for seeking further instructions.Writ Petition Allowed - Case Remanded as above. *******