ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 3. IT APPEARS THAT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WAS FILED WITH A DELAY OF 155 DAYS. THE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND DID NOT TAKE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ON RECORD. THE CIVIL REVISION FILED AGAINST THAT ORDER HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. IN OUR VIEW, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THIS IS A MATRIMONIAL MATTER AND THE APPELLANT IS A WOMAN AND ALSO THE FACT THAT EVEN IF WRITTEN STATEMENT HAD BEEN FILED ON TIME, THE SUIT WOULD NOT HAVE REACHED HEARING FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, WE FEEL THAT THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO TAKE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ON FILE. THE APPROPRIATE ORDER SHOULD BE TO DIRECT PAYMENT OF COSTS; IF NECESSARY, A HIGH AMOUNT. 4. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT (HEREIN) IS SUCH THAT THIS COURT SHOULD NOT INTERFERE UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT SOME WRONG STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN AFFIDAVITS. IN OUR VIEW THE AMOUNT OR COSTS TO BE AWARDED CAN ALSO TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION. 5. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON PAYMENT OF COSTS OF A RS 10,000. COSTS TO BE A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO TAKING THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ON FILE. AS IT IS A MATRIMONIAL SUIT, THE TRIAL COURT IS REQUESTED TO DISPOSE OF THE SUIT AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE. 6. THE APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.