JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sabhaieet Yadav, J.—By this petition, the petitioners have sought relief of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.8.07 contained in Annexure-8 and the order dated 10.5.07 contained in Annexure-7 respectively passed by the opposite party No. l upholding the order dated 2.3.07 contained in Annexure-6 of the writ petition and the order dated 14.2.2006 contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2 and further relief, which may appear to be just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, has also been sought for. 2. The relief sought for in the writ petition rests on the facts that on 20.9.04 opposite party No. 3 instituted a suit No. 659 of 2004 for ejectment and damage against the petitioners, inter-alia, on the ground that he is the owner of the premises No. 6/123 Guru Ravidas Nagar, Wazir Hasan Road, Lucknow, having purchased the same from its previous owner Vipin Behari and Smt. Madhuri Saini by a registered sale deed dated 19.12.2002 and the petitioners were inducted as licensee in the year 1993 and their licence having been revoked through registered notice, despite thereof, they are occupying the premises in question unauthorizedly without any right or title and are liable to be ejected. After service of summons of suit, petitioners had put in their appearance on 6.11.04 seeking adjournment to file written statement. The case accordingly adjourned to 9.2.05, on which date it was adjourned to 10.2.05 as 9.2.05 was declared as holiday. (9.1.05 appears to be wrongly written in the writ petition). On 10.2.05, opposite party No. 3 made an application under Order 8 Rules 1 and 10 of the C.P.C., whereupon the date was fixed for 12.5.05 for disposal of objection, if any, filed against the said application. Copy of the application is on record as Annexure-1 of the writ petition. On 12.5.05 the case was adjourned as the Courts were closed after lunch due to sad demise of a Counsel and date was fixed for 18.7.05, on which date, petitioners made an application seeking adjournment to file written statement, which was allowed on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost and 9.8.05 was fixed to file written statement. On 9.8.05 petitioners could not get written statement prepared with the result, they made application seeking time, which was allowed on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost and 9.8.05 was fixed to file written statement. On 9.8.05 petitioners could not get written statement prepared with the result, they made application seeking time, which was allowed on payment of Rs. 150/- as cost and a date 12.8.05 was fixed, on that day it was adjourned to 25.8.05 on an application made by the petitioners on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost. 25.8.05 was holiday, hence the case was adjourned for 14.9.05, on that day an application was made by the petitioners seeking time to file written statement, which was allowed on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost and the case was fixed for 17.10.05, on that day it was adjourned to 14.11.05. On 14.11.05 Presiding Officer was on leave, hence the case was adjourned for 15.12.05 and on 15.12.05 the petitioners have filed their objection paper No. C-19 to the application made by opposite party No. 3 under Order 8 Rules 1 and 10 of the C.P.C. A true copy of the objection is on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition. On 15.12.2005, petitioners made application for adjournment of the case, which was fixed for disposal of application under Order-8 Rules 1 and 10 C.P.C. the application was allowed and the case was fixed for 14.2.2006. 3. On 14.2.06, an application was moved by the petitioners that since Sri Ramashanker Singh, Advocate, their Counsel is out of station and has gone to Delhi and will return on 18.2.06 and thereafter he would proceed on 21.2.06 for pilgrimage and will return back on 27.2.06, hence some date may be fixed for disposal of application under Order 8 Rules 1 and 10 of the C.P.C. Photostat copy of the said application is on record as Annexure-3 of the writ petition but in spite of the aforesaid application of the petitioner for adjournment of the case, the Court has proceeded with the disposal of the application of opposite party No. 3 under Order-8 Rules 1 and 10 of the C.P.C. by observing that nobody has pressed the application for adjournment and fixed 22.3.06 the date for evidence of the plaintiff and hearing of the suit by striking of the defence of the petitioners. 4. 4. It is further stated that the order dated 14.2.06 contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition was ex-parte order, therefore, the petitioners moved an application on 7.3.2006 for recall of the said order and sought permission to file written statement. The application is on record as Annexure-5 of the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 filed objection against the said application of the petitioners dated 7.3.06 and the petitioners have filed their rejoinder-affidavit on 4.9.06. The application moved by the petitioners for recalling of the order dated 14.2.06 came up for orders on 2.3.07 and was rejected by the opposite party No. 2 on the ground that in case written statement was ready, why it was not filed, for which no explanation has been furnished and further the cost has not been paid by the petitioners though said fact is in correct and satisfactory explanation was already made in the application dated 7.3.06 for recalling of the order dated 14.2.06. Photostat copy of the certified copy of the order dated 2.3.07 is on record as Annexure-6 of the writ petition. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.2.06 petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 144 of 2007 on 2.4.07, which was rejected by the opposite party No. 1 vide order dated 10.5.07 by incorrectly observing that the right to challenge the order dated 20.4.07 is now not available to them because they are stopped from challenging the said order on principles of estoppel and waiver and principle of merger. It was also incorrectly observed that the order dated 20.4.07 has been merged in the order dated 18.4.07 although by means of the aforesaid order, only the hearing of the revision was adjourned. The revision was dismissed holding that the order dated 14.2.06 does not in any manner suffers from any legal infirmity and jurisdictional error. A certified copy of the order dated 10.5.07 is on record as Annexure-7 of the writ petition. 6. The revision was dismissed holding that the order dated 14.2.06 does not in any manner suffers from any legal infirmity and jurisdictional error. A certified copy of the order dated 10.5.07 is on record as Annexure-7 of the writ petition. 6. Aggrieved against the order dated 2.3.07 (Annexure-6 of the writ petition) and the order dated 14.2.06 (contained in annexure-4 of the writ petition), petitioners have filed revision No. 244 of 2007, which was dismissed by opposite party No. 1 vide order dated 14.8.07 on the ground that since earlier revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.2.06 has already been dismissed, hence in case order dated 2.3.07 is set aside, it will revive the application made by the petitioners under Section 151, C.P.C. for recalling of the order dated 14.2.06, which would amount abuse of process. No jurisdictional error has been committed by opposite party No. 2 in its order dated 2.3.07, hence the revision, itself was dismissed as not maintainable at the admission stage. Copy of the order dated 14.8.07 is on the record as Annexure-8 of the writ petition. Being aggrieved the petitioners filed instant writ petition. 7. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Adil Khan for the petitioners and Sri Upendra Misra, learned Advocate for contesting respondent No. 3. Since both the parties are ready to advance their argument on merit of the case without any exchange of counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit, therefore, the case has been heard afresh for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Adil Khan for the petitioners and Sri Upendra Misra, learned Advocate for contesting respondent No. 3. Since both the parties are ready to advance their argument on merit of the case without any exchange of counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit, therefore, the case has been heard afresh for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. On the basis of the assertions in the pleadings of the writ petition and at the strength of the law propounded by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rani Kusum (Smt.) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) and others, 2005(23) LCD 1443 and R.N. Jadi and Brothers (M/s) and others v. Subhash Chandra, 2007 (3) ARC 1, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. does not deal with the power of the Court and also does not specifically take away the power of the Court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for rather casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days for the reasons to be recorded in writing by the Court. And the nature of the provision contained in Order-8, Rule-1 is procedural. It is not a part of substantive law and no person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending. Processual law should not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but as lubricant in aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress in the administration of justice. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. Processual law should not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but as lubricant in aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress in the administration of justice. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. In order to substantiate his submission the learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the petitioners’ Advocate Sri Rama Shanker Singh has been out of station on the relevant date, and the petitioners have also paid costs imposed by the Court below while granting earlier adjournments and meanwhile before filing of the written statement by the petitioners, respondent-3 has filed an application under Order-8, Rule-1 and 10, C.P.C. on 10.2.2005 for proceeding thereunder, thereafter several dates were fixed for disposal of the said application and ultimately a date 14.2.2006 was fixed for disposal of the said application, therefore, petitioners had no occasion to file their written statement at any point of time either earlier or after 14.2.06 and in fact the petitioners were not permitted to file their written statement either by the trial Court or by the revisional Court in the proceedings before these Courts though along with the memo of revision, they had filed the photo copy of the written statement before the revisional Court in order to show their bona-fide for filing such written statement and demonstrated that there was no latches on their part but merely on account of absence of their Counsel, who was out of station on 14.2.2006, written statement could not be filed in time as the aforesaid situation was beyond their control as stated in various paragraphs of the writ petition. 9. 9. Not only this but the learned Counsel for the petitioners in order to demonstrate their bona-fide before this Court, has further submitted that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, may be pleased to direct the Court below for taking the written statement on record to be filed by the petitioners, copy of which was filed along with the memo of revision before the Court below by awarding a reasonable cost upon the petitioners to repair the loss or inconvenience caused to the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 on account of delayed filing of written statement, if any, this Court may deem fit and proper in given facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and further a time framed schedule may be fixed by this Court, wherein trial Court may be directed to frame the issues, take evidences of the parties and conclude the hearing of the case after taking the written statement of the petitioners on record. 10. Contrary to it, Sri Upendra Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 has vehemently opposed and refuted the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and pointed out that the suit was filed on 20.9.04 and the summons were served upon the defendant personally along with the copy of the plaint etc. on 15.10.2004 and in pursuant thereto they appeared in the Court on 6.11.04, The defendants have filed Vakalatnama on 6.11.04, itself and moved adjournment application i.e. for time to file written statement in the suit. Application for time to file written statement was allowed and submitted that in view of the amended provisions of Order-8 Rule-1, C.P.C. the period of ninety days expired on 13.1.05; from the date of the service of summons on the defendants on 15.10.2004 and in any case if 90 days counts from 6.11.04, same has expired on 4.2.05. Application for time to file written statement was allowed and submitted that in view of the amended provisions of Order-8 Rule-1, C.P.C. the period of ninety days expired on 13.1.05; from the date of the service of summons on the defendants on 15.10.2004 and in any case if 90 days counts from 6.11.04, same has expired on 4.2.05. The defendants have not filed written statement either on 13.1.05 or 4.2.05 within 90 days time as prescribed by the provisions of Order-8 Rule-1 of the Amended C.P.C. Since 90 days time have already expired and no written statement was filed within that time, therefore, the suit was liable to be proceeded under Order-8 Rule-10, C.P.C. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has also placed reliance upon the same decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were relied by the petitioners’ Counsel and tried to justify the orders passed by the Courts below impugned in the writ petition and further submitted that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court should not grant any indulgence to the petitioners in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India even by awarding any cost upon the petitioners payable to the plaintiff-respondent and by issuing direction for disposal of the suit after taking the written statement on record, proposed to be filed by the petitioners even under a time framed schedule as suggested by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 11. While emphasizing the observations made by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan in R.N. Jadi case (supra), learned Counsel for the plaintiff- respondent has submitted that in order to achieve the object of the amended provision of Order 8 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., grant of extension of time beyond 30 days is not routine and automatic, the Court should not be left to extend time indiscriminately, which would tend to defeat the object sought to be achieved by the amendment to the Code, rather in order to encourage the belief in the litigants, the imperative of Order-8 Rule 1, C.P.C. must be adhered to and that only in rare and exceptional cases, breach thereof will be condoned and such an approach by the Courts alone can carry forward the legislative intent of avoiding delay or at least in curtailing the delay in the disposal of suits filed in Courts. 12. 12. I have carefully examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by both the parties in favour of their respective cases and have also gone through the records. 13. In Rani Kusum’s case (supra) while dealing with the nature of provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Amended C.P.C. and its object and scope in paras-8, 9, 10,13, 15 and 18 of the decision, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : 8. The text of Order 8 Rule 1, as it stands now, reads as under : “1. Written statement.—The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence. Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons." 9. Order 8 Rule 1 after the amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of the Court and also does not specifically take away the power of the Court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for. Further, the nature of the provision contained in Order 8 Rule-1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. The substituted Order 8 Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics, delaying the disposal of cases causing inconvenience to plaintiffs and petitioners approaching the Court for quick relief and also to the serious inconvenience of the Court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. 10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. 10. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of C.P.C. or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the Court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. 13. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. (See Blyth v. Blyth, (1966) 1 All E.R. 524 : 1966 AC 643 : (1966) 2 WLR 634 (HL). A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation, which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. (See : Shreenath v. Rajesh, (1998) 4 SCC 543 : AIR 1998 SC 1827 ). 15. It is also to be noted that though the power of the Court under the proviso appended to Rule 1 Order 8 is circumscribed by the words “shall not be later than ninety days” but the consequences flowing from non-extension of time are not specifically provided for though they may be read in by necessary implication. Merely because a provision of law is couched in a negative language implying mandatory character, the same is not without exceptions. The Courts when called upon to interpret the nature of the provision, may, keeping in view the entire context in which the provision came to be enacted, hold the same to be directory though worded in the negative form. 18. The Courts when called upon to interpret the nature of the provision, may, keeping in view the entire context in which the provision came to be enacted, hold the same to be directory though worded in the negative form. 18. After elaborating the purpose for introduction of Order 8 Rule 1, this Court in Kailash case (supra) at SCC para-45 observed that no straitjacket formula can be laid down except that observance of time schedule contemplated by Order 8 Rule 1 shall be the rule and departure therefrom an exception, made for satisfactory reasons only." 14. Same view has also been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court again in R.N. Jadi’s case (supra) and there appears no further deviation from it. 15. From the aforesaid statements of law, now there can be no manner of doubt to hold that the provisions under Order-8 Rule-1, C.P.C. are not mandatory, rather they are directory and procedural in nature. They do not give substantive right to any of the parties of proceedings rather cast an obligation upon the defendant to file written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons and within extended time falling within 90 days for the reasons to be recorded by the Court while accepting the written statement after 30 days within the outer time limit of 90 days. The provisions do not deal with the power of the Court and also do not specifically take away the power of the Court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond time as provided for. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rani Kusum’s case it is no doubt true that the amended provision of Order-8 Rule-1, C.P.C. as substituted by Amendment Act 02 with effect from 1.7.02 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactics in delaying the disposal of the case causing inconvenience to the plaintiff approaching the Court for quick relief and also to curb the serious inconvenience of the Court faced with frequent prayer for adjournments, but the ultimate object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. The provisions have been made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. In an adversial system no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation, unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute. The provisions have been made to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. In an adversial system no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation, unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute. The provisions of C.P.C. or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner, which would leave the Court helpless to meet the extra ordinary situation in the ends of justice. Ultimately in para-18 of the decision the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that no straitjacket formula can be laid down except that observance of time schedule contemplated by Order-8 Rule-1 shall be the rule and departure therefrom an exception, made for satisfactory reasons only. Therefore, I have to examine as to whether the Courts below were justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for accepting their delayed written statement to be filed in the suit, if so, which relief can be given by this Court in given facts and circumstances of the case? 16. Now applying the aforesaid legal principle upon the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is to be noted that it is not in dispute that the suit in question was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 3 against the petitioners on 20/25.9.2004 and summons were served upon the petitioners who are defendants in suit on 15.10.2004. The defendants appeared before the trial Court on 6.11.2004 on that day, they have filed Vakalatnama and have sought time for filing written statements. The application of defendants was allowed and the case was adjourned to 10.2.2005. On 10.2.2005 no written statement was filed by defendants. The defendants appeared before the trial Court on 6.11.2004 on that day, they have filed Vakalatnama and have sought time for filing written statements. The application of defendants was allowed and the case was adjourned to 10.2.2005. On 10.2.2005 no written statement was filed by defendants. The plaintiff- Respondent No. 3 has filed an application under Order 8 Rules 1 and 10, C.P.C., wherein it has been stated that outer time limit of 90 days for filing written statement from the date of service of summons on the defendants from 15.10.2004 has already been expired on 13.1.2005 and from 6.11.2004 expired on 4.2.2005, and no written statement has been filed by defendants, therefore, Court should proceed with the suit under Order 8 Rule 10, C.P.C. The aforesaid application was fixed for disposal on 12.5.2005 by inviting objection thereon, thereafter some adjournments were sought by the petitioners for filing written statement and were allowed by the trial Court on payment of costs, ultimately the application of respondent No. 3 was fixed for disposal on 14.2.2006. On that day an application was moved by the petitioners that their Counsel is out of station, therefore, another date may be fixed, but instead of granting adjournment, the learned trial Court has proceeded with the case and disposed of the application of respondent No. 3 ex-parte under Order 8 Rules 1 and 10 of C.P.C. by rejecting the said application of defendants holding that no one appeared to press the adjournment application; opportunity to file the written statement has already been provided at several occasions, but no written statement has been filed so far, therefore, there can be no justification for further adjournment and directed to proceed with the case under Order 8 Rule 10, C.P.C. with a further direction to the plaintiff to adduce his evidence by fixing date 22.3.2006. By this order, the opportunity to file written statement has been struck of. 17. By this order, the opportunity to file written statement has been struck of. 17. It is no doubt true that earlier to 14.2.2006, the trial Court has granted several adjournments to the defendants providing opportunity to file written statement even on expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons upon them, on payment of costs and there appears no justification for the defendants why they did not appear on 14.2.2006, and press their application for adjournment in absence of their Counsel, who was out of station on that day but from the perusal of the impugned orders of trial Court and revisional Court there appears nothing to show that they have examined genuineness of adjournments sought for by the defendants on 14.2.2006. At this occasion it does not appear from the record that defendants have adopted any dilatory tactics to seek adjournment of the case by changing their earlier Counsel and/or engaging another Counsel. It is also not in dispute that their Counsel, who was conducting the case was out of station on that day, therefore, in given facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court ought to have given one more adjournment on that count by imposing cost or without cost as the Court would have found appropriate in given facts and circumstances of the case. 18. It is also true that after amendment under Order 8 Rule 1, C.P.C. as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions referred herein before, the Court should not grant time for filing of written statement on expiry of 30 days, within outer time limit of 90 days, in routine manner on mere asking for, but such adjournment and extention of time should be given by recording reasons therefor. And on expiry of 90 days, the Court should grant such extension of times only in exceptional and rarest cases by recording cogent reasons therefor. But in the instant case, it appears that the trial Court has rejected the request of adjournment of the petitioners merely on account of fact that at earlier occasions several opportunities were given to the defendants to file their written statement by adjourning the case and awarding costs upon the defendants but they did not file the same, without examining the facts and circumstances of the case, under which the adjournment in question was sought for on that day. It is no doubt true that procedure provided under Order 8 Rule 1 is meant to avoid delay in trial of suits, and undue adjournments in proceeding, but one should not forget that it is still for fair trial to advance the cause of justice and should not be utilized to deny a party to participate in process of justice dispensation and thereby penalize it. In my considered opinion, in given facts and circumstances of the case, such approach of trial Court as well as revisional Court cannot be held to be justified, therefore, to shorten the multiplicity of the litigation and in order to provide one more opportunity to the defendants to participate in the process of justice dispensation, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court ought to have accepted the written statement offered by the defendants even during pendency of the revision by awarding reasonable cost upon the petitioners-defendants for the inconvenience and the loss suffered by the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 by fixing any appropriate date for filing of written statement and fixing another date for settlement of issues and adducing evidence by the parties as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Even if assuming that the order passed by the trial Court as well as revisional Court below could be justified to certain extent having regard to the stringent provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 and legislative intent behind it, even then, in my opinion, as held by Hon’ble Apex Court, in given facts and circumstances of the case, in order to advance the cause of justice and to shorten the multiplicity in proceedings and to permit the petitioners to participate in process of justice dispensation, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court were not powerless to grant appropriate relief by extending the time in filing of written statement by passing appropriate order in this regard including the imposition of cost upon the defendants to repair the loss and inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff-respondent, but both the Courts below did not considered this aspect of the matter, therefore, the orders passed by them impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained, accordingly the same are, hereby, quashed. 19. Thus, in given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs. 19. Thus, in given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs. 5000/- as cost upon the petitioners-(defendants) would be appropriate to meet the damage and inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff- respondent in delayed filing of written statement, which shall be paid by the petitioners before the Court below on the date of filing of the written statement within a period of fifteen days from today, and further having regard to bona-fide of the petitioners-defendants, I am inclined to fix a time framed schedule, in which the trial Court shall decide the suit finally without granting any undue adjournment to the parties. The petitioners are permitted to file their written statement within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order before the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to take written statement on record and frame the issues on the next date fixed by it after fifteen days and not beyond the period of thirty days. Thereafter, within another period of two months the trial Court shall take evidence and close the same and the case would be heard finally thereafter within another period of one month and further the suit shall be decided within another one month not exceeding two months. Thus, I hope and trust that the suit shall be decided within a total period of six months from the date of decision of this Court. In case the petitioners fail to file written statement within time and pay the cost to the plaintiff, within time stipulated herein before, it shall be open to the trial Court to proceed ex-parte against the petitioners. 20. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 21. The office is directed to supply certified copy of this order to the Counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charge within 24 hours. ————