Judgment : Oral Judgment: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission, as a notice of final disposal was issued to the respondents by an order dated 21.1.2009. 2. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner had filed a Regular Civil Suit No.156/2001 for a declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the agricultural land in village Chinchapur. After the service of summons upon the respondents they engaged a counsel but did not file a written statement. The trial court proceeded without written statement by an order dated 17.2.2002. The said order was however, not challenged by the respondents. The plaintiff adduced the evidence and the case was closed for judgment. When the case was closed for judgment on 30.4.2004, the respondent filed an application for permission to file written statement and also applied for setting aside the order “No W.S.”. The petitioner opposed the said application on the ground that the said application was not tenable as the case was closed for judgment. The trial court, however, by order dated 1.9.2004 allowed the application filed by the respondent and permitted the respondents to file written statement. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5580/2004. This court allowed the writ petition and remanded the application to the trial court for rehearing. After remand, the learned trial court reconsidered the application for setting aside of “No W.S.” order and allowed it subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- by the impugned order dated 3.12.2008. 3. Mrs. Anjali Bhide, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to allow the application or even entertain the same when the case was closed for judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 998 & 1985 Mh.L.J. Page 565 and an unreported judgment of this court dated 8.5.2009 in Writ Petition No.1463/2009 to substantiate her submission. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing more to be heard in a suit when the matter is fixed for judgment and the court is competent to pronounce the judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court was not justified in such circumstances to entertain the application filed by the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing more to be heard in a suit when the matter is fixed for judgment and the court is competent to pronounce the judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court was not justified in such circumstances to entertain the application filed by the respondents. 4. None appears on behalf of the respondents, though they are duly served with a notice of final disposal. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the impugned order dated 3.12.2008 along with the reported and unreported judgments. On perusal of the same, it is clear that the trial court was not justified in allowing the application for filing of written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. The case was already closed for judgment and as observed by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1964 SC 998, that there is nothing more to be heard in the suit when the matter is fixed for pronouncement of judgment and the court is therefore not entitled to entertain an application or pass any order thereon. Similar view has been reiterated by this court in the judgment reported in 1985 Mh.L.J. Page 565, wherein this court has observed that an application for cross examination is not tenable when the matter is fixed or closed for judgment. By applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of this case, it is clear that the application filed by the respondents for permission to file written statement by setting aside the ‘No W.S.’ order when the matter was closed for judgment, was not tenable. The trial court committed a serious error in allowing the application filed by the respondents subject to the costs of Rs.1000/-. The order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court on 3.12.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application filed by the respondents at Exhibit 17 is dismissed in the facts and circumstances of the case. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. In the facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.