N. K. JAIN, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed against the order dated 8. 1. 2004 passed in W. P. . 43050/2003 wherein the learned single judge set aside the order dated 5. 8. 2003 passed in O. S. 11308/94 and directed the Trial Judge to accept the written statement filed by the respondents and decide the case expeditiously. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents- defendants filed written statement 9 years after the date of service of summons in the partition suit. As per the amendment to the C. P. C. . , written statement has to be filed within 90 days, and therefore, the learned single judge has erred in reversing the order of the Trial Court. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record. ( 4 ) IN the original suit, there were as many as 25 defendants. During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff and some of the defendants died and their L. Rs. were brought on record. Hence, there was no progress in the proceedings. The learned single judge, opining that no prejudice would be caused to the appellants by permitting the defendants to file written statement, directed the Trial Judge to accept the same. It is submitted that the written statement is now taken on record. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, permitting the respondents-defendants to file written statement in the partition suit would not lead to miscarriage of justice. The discretionary order passed by the learned single judge does not suffer from any error or illegality, calling for interference. The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.