ORDER The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 1853/2005 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-13). On April 7, 2007, the Court directed the parties that is both the plaintiff and the defendants to appear before the Court on July 21, 2007 as on that day, the representative of the defendants sought for time on the ground that settlement may be possible. On July 21, 2007 though the plaintiff and his: counsel were present before the Court, none of the defendants nor their counsel appeared before the Court Therefore, the Court proceeded to strike down the written statement filed by the defendant in exercise of its power under Order 10 Rule 4 of C.P.C. The said order striking down the written statement of the defendants is impugned in this Writ Petition. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has appeared through his learned counsel and has filed his statement of objections. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the order of the Court striking down the written statement in exercise of its power under Order 10 Rule 4(2) of C.P .C. is illegal in view of the fact that the case had not been posted for appearance of the parties for their examination in terms of Order 10 Rule 4 C.P.C. He further contended that appearance of the parties for examination to answer any specific question of the Court under Order 10 Rule 4 C.P.C. would arise only if the pleader appearing on behalf of the parties is unable or refuses to answer any material question related to the suit which the Court is of the opinion that the party whom the such pleader represents ought to answer. He also placed reliance on decision of this Court in the case of Karnataka Export Limited v. Mysore Iron and Steel Limited AIR 1975 Kar 128 . Undisputed fact is that on July 4, 2007 on the representation made by the representative of the defendants, that settlement may be possible, the Court directed the plaintiff and the defendant to appear in person on July 21, 2007. Undisputed fact is that on July 4, 2007 on the representation made by the representative of the defendants, that settlement may be possible, the Court directed the plaintiff and the defendant to appear in person on July 21, 2007. Thus, the case was not set down on July 21, 2007 for examination of the parties under Order 10 C.P.C., nor the Court had recorded a finding that the pleader who was representing the defendant has either refused or was unable to answer any material question related to the suit nor the Court had formed an opinion that the party who is represented by such pleader himself ought to answer such questions. Therefore, on July 21, 2007, appearance of the parties was not for their examination under Order 10 C.P.C. A single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid decision has held that an order directing a party to appear in person can be passed only if the pleader who is representing him has refused to answer any material question related to the suit. As the suit was not set down for examination of the parties, in terms of Order 10 C.P.C. on July 21, 2007, the Court below could not have exercised its power under Order 10 Rule 4(2) C.P.C. to strike down the defence of the defendants. In this view of the matter, the impugned order suffers from illegality and it cannot be sustained. 6. Of course, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is delay in filing this Writ Petition and even subsequent to the impugned order, the defendants have participated in the proceedings before the Court. As the impugned order is contrary to law, mere delay cannot be a ground to sustain such an illegal order. Therefore, I see no substance in this contention. 7. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order dated July 21, 2007striking down the written statement filed by the defendant is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The Order dated July 21, 2007 passed in O.S. No. 1853/2005 striking down the written statement of the defendants in exercise of power under Order 10 Rule 4 of C.P.C. is set aside.