JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge who has been pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional District Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Ajmer by which he had refused to take the written statement on record in Civil Suit No. 175/2003 Jorawar Mal and Anr v. Nemi Chand & Anr. 2. This order was passed by the learned Single Judge as the written statement filed by the defendant-appellant before the District Judge was time barred by 29 days, for which he had filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein that he was suffering from heart disease due to which he had to undergo the treatment and, therefore, he could not file the written statement within a period of 90 days. 3. This gave rise to several rounds of litigation at the instance of the defendant-appellant-Shri Nemi Chand who initially filed a writ petition before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur challenging the order of the Additional District Judge No.2 (Fast Track), Ajmer, who had refused to accept the written statement on account of delay of 29 days in filing the same. The learned Single Judge at the Principal Seat - Jodhpur, allowed the writ petition permitting the petitioner/appellant herein to file the written statement after imposing a cost of Rs. 3,000/- which according to the defendant-appellant was accepted by the respondent-plaintiff but the same has been denied by his counsel. The plaintiff/respondent thereafter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur which was allowed on the plea of jurisdiction as it was held therein that the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition at Jodhpur as the writ petition should have been filed before the Bench at Jaipur and hence the order of the learned Single Judge permitting the defendant-petitioner to file the written statement before the trial Court after imposition of cost was set aside. The learned Judges of the Division Bench thereafter transferred the matter at Jaipur for consideration of the writ petition of the defendant-appellant on merit and that is how it was placed before the learned Single Judge at Jaipur Bench for a fresh consideration. 4. The learned Judges of the Division Bench thereafter transferred the matter at Jaipur for consideration of the writ petition of the defendant-appellant on merit and that is how it was placed before the learned Single Judge at Jaipur Bench for a fresh consideration. 4. The plaintiff-respondent acquiesced with the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench at Jodhpur as he did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Division Bench at Jodhpur contesting that the matter should not have been transferred at Jaipur. Therefore, the question of transfer of the matter at Jaipur Bench, in our view, stands at rest. 5. The matter thereafter was placed before the learned Single Judge for considering the question as to whether the trial Court was justified in disallowing the defendant-petitioner from filing the written statement, although is the cost which had been imposed duly deposited and accepted by the plaintiff-respondent. The learned Single Judge thereafter, vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2004, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition as it was held that the defendant-appellant had lost his right to file the written statement since it had not been filed within a period of 90 days. 6. The defendant-appellant thereafter preferred this appeal before the Division Bench in which notice had been issued by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and an order of stay is operating in favour of the appellant in regard to the proceedings of the civil suit which is pending before the Additional District Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Ajmer. It is unfortunate that a written statement, which had not been accepted due to the delay of 29 days, is lying dormant for several years on account of unnecessary litigation merely for considering a similar question whether the written statement could have been filed within 90 days or the delay in filing the same could have been condoned. However, at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent, who preferred an appeal in spite of having accepted the cost, has led to this state of affairs where a suit which had been filed before the Fast Track Court for speedy disposal is shuttling from Jodhpur to Jaipur merely to consider whether the delay of 29 days in filing the written statement could have been condoned. The learned Single Judge however, thought it appropriate to dismiss the writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution for the reasons stated therein. 7. Without entering into the correctness of the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judge as to whether the cause was sufficient for not filing the written statement within the period of 90 days, we have thought it appropriate to consider the matter whether the order disallowing the defendant-appellant from filing the written statement would result into grave miscarriage of justice and while doing so we are satisfied that disallowing the written statement merely for a delay of 29 days inspite of a just cause ultimately is bound to result into grave miscarriage of justice. Our view stands fortified by ratio of the judgment delivered in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagpur v. Swaraj Developers and ors. reported in 2003(6) SCC 659 wherein it has been held that although a revision against an interlocutory order may not be maintainable, a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 can be entertained provided the order under challenge suffers from grave miscarriage of justice. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are fully satisfied that if the delay of 29 days could have been condoned by the trial Court perhaps this delay of several years in prosecuting the suit could have been avoided and perhaps the suit itself would have been decided by now. Preventing the defendant appellant from filing the written statement has unnecessarily led to this undue delay which could have been avoided if the plea of miscarriage of justice had been duly considered. In fact, when the plaintiff-respondents accepted the amount towards cost, in our view, he had no right to prefer the appeal thereafter before the Division Bench but rightly or wrongly if the same had been entertained, the plea of miscarriage of justice ought to have been given due weightage. It cannot be ignored if the written statement had been disallowed for the delay of 29 days, ultimately the suit was bound to be decreed without contest and that would have finally resulted into an uncontested decree sacrificing the cause of justice which would be worse. 8. It cannot be ignored if the written statement had been disallowed for the delay of 29 days, ultimately the suit was bound to be decreed without contest and that would have finally resulted into an uncontested decree sacrificing the cause of justice which would be worse. 8. The counsel for the respondents has vehemently submitted that in a Full Bench decision of this Court in the matter of this Court delivered in the matter of Ramesh Chand Tiwari v. Board of Revenue & ors., reported in 2005(4) RDD 615 (Raj.), it has been laid down that if an order has been passed by the learned Single Judge in revisional jurisdiction, a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained. While the counsel is correct to the extent that a writ petition against an order passed in a revision cannot be entertained, the ratio of the Full Bench Decision is clearly that if an appeal is filed by an affected party before the Division Bench against an order passed by the learned Single Judge challenging the order by which they had refused to entertain the matter i against an interlocutory order passed by the trial Court, the Division Bench will consider whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge amounts to have been passed under a revisional jurisdiction or it was an order passed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India and it is for the Division Bench to consider and hold as to whether an appeal could be entertained or not meaning thereby that if an order appears to have been passed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, an appeal would definitely lie before the Division Bench. In the instant matter, the facts clearly disclose that the dispute which was existing between the contesting parties and had been entertained by the learned Single Judge was not revisional in nature as the writ petition itself had been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution and, therefore, it is open for the Division Bench to consider whether an appeal should be entertained. We have no, manner of doubt that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution giving rise to gross miscarriage of justice by disallowing the i defendant- appellant from filing the written statement and, therefore, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to accept the written statement by imposing the cost which is legally permissible even under the Code of Civil Procedure also as directed by the learned Single Judge at Jodhpur on the earlier occasion. 9. We, therefore, feel justified in directing the Additional District Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Ajmer to permit the defendant- appellant to take the written statement on record which has already been filed and proceed with the suit expeditiously. The interim order staying further proceeding of the suit pending in the court of Additional District Judge No. 2 (Fast Track), Ajmer thus stands vacated. The appeal accordingly stands allowed and disposed of.Appeal allowed as above. *******