( 1 ) I have heard the petitioners learned advocate. The record shows that the notice was issued to the respondent and the learned advocate who represents the respondent and they have remained absent. ( 2 ) THE short point is as to whether one is to construe it that it is the fundamental right of a party to a litigation or for that matter the lawyer representing the party, to take any number of adjournments irrespective of what the grounds or the situation is. The present case is a classic instance where a written statement was not filed despite 18 adjournments having been taken. All that the plaintiff did was to point out that under the amended CPC that there is a specific deadline or a time frame that has been specified for the filing of the written statement and that once this period lapses, it is not open even to the court to grant further time. The petitioner before me filed an application before the trial court requesting to pronounce judgment as the suit was virtually uncontested in so far as no written statement had been filed. Despite this application, the Presiding Officer of the court has granted further time. It is against this order that the present CRP has been preferred. ( 3 ) THIS case represents a most disastrous state of affairs and further more, what aggravates the situation is the fact that despite the plaintiff who is an aggrieved party pointing out the legal position to the Presiding Officer that time was still granted. I am informed at the Bar that even after the date on which the time was granted, that some more dates of hearing came up and that the time has been further extended. ( 4 ) IT is necessary to remind the Presiding Officers of the subordinate courts that irrespective of what the Bar may contend, that it is the law that prevails and that it is the law that will have to be followed. It is this kind of leniency and laxity that has multiplied the dates of hearing and a recent survey has shown that in this State alone, as far as the subordinate courts are concerned in this class of proceedings that there are 27 times as many hearings as are normally necessary. It is this kind of leniency and laxity that has multiplied the dates of hearing and a recent survey has shown that in this State alone, as far as the subordinate courts are concerned in this class of proceedings that there are 27 times as many hearings as are normally necessary. This is because of the laxity on the part of the courts and it is also because of the fact that the lawyers representing the parties assume, again, that it is their fundamental right to dilate the proceedings and let them pileup. There is no legal or moral sanction for this state of affairs which will have to stop. One must always remember the fact that the leniency or laxity or sympathy shown to one party works very prejudicially and harshly against the other party. Having regard to this position the CRP succeeds. The learned trial Judge is directed, on the next date of hearing to pronounce the judgment and dispose off the suit. Copy of this order to be furnished to the learned advocate forthwith. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .