ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 23/11/2009 (Annexure A/7) by which the application filed by Respondent No. 3/State Government to take the written statement on record has been allowed and eventually the written statement has been taken on record, as well as the order dated 18/1/2010 ( which is also a part of Annexure A/7) to amend the written statement by allowing the amendment application. 2. The matter in controversy cannot be understood if the relevant dates are not mentioned and hence, we think it appropriate to quote certain dates and the proceedings of the learned Trial Court as well as what orders were passed by that Court on those dates as follows: 1988A suit for specific performance of the contract wasfiled by the plaintiffs arraying respondent No.1Jivajirao Sugar Co.Ltd. as defendant. 29/1/2000 Plaintiffs moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. to implead the State Government as defendant No.3. 15/12/2000 Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. was allowed and the State Government was made as defendant No.3. 16/2/2001 Government Pleader appeared and sought time to file the written statement. 22/2/2001 08/3/2001 22/3/2001 01/5/2001 14/5/2001 18/7/2001 06/8/2001 Adjournments were sought by the learned Government Pleader to file written statement which the learned Court conveniently gave and adjourned the matter to file the written statement. 23/8/2001 Written statement was not filed and last opportunity was given by the learned Trial Cou to defendant No.3/State Government to file written statement. 11/9/2001 State Government moved an application (IA 1) under section 446 of the Indian Companies Act,1956. 15/12/2003 Application of the State Government filed under section 446 of the Indian Companies Act was dismissed in default and a date was fixed to file written statement 23/1/2004 written statement was not filed and again time was sought to file written statement 123 Although last opportunity to file written statement was already given on 23/8/2001 and eventually the defendant No. 3/State Government was required to file the written statement on 11/9/2001. 06/2/2004 Last opportunity was given to file the written statement which was already given on 23/8/2001. 19/2/2004 Defendant No.3/State Government again sought time to file the written statement which was allowed. 24/2/2004. 06/2/2004 Last opportunity was given to file the written statement which was already given on 23/8/2001. 19/2/2004 Defendant No.3/State Government again sought time to file the written statement which was allowed. 24/2/2004. The Government Pleader for the State Government declared that the State Government does not want to file the written statement and the case was fixed for recording the evidence. 30/7/2004. Affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiffs. 17/8/2004. Fresh application under section 446 of the Indian Companies Act was filed which was numbered as I.A.21 and another application permitting the defendant No.3/State Government to file the written statement (I.A.22) was filed alongwith the written statement. Proceedings of the learned Trial Court thereafter continued for consideration of I.A.21 and I.A.22. 21/12/2004. I.A.21 which is an application under section 446 of the Indian Companies Act was allowed and the civil suit was held to be not maintainable against which WP No.2715/05 was filed before this Court and vide order dated 30/1/2006 this Court restored the suit. 16/3/2006. Learned Trial Court directed the plaintiffs to bring order from the Company Court to proceed with the suit. 10/12/2007. High Court/Company Court granted permission in Company Petition No.25/01 to proceed with the suit. 15/2/2008 Order passed by the High Court/Company Court to proceed with the suit was produced in the learned Trial Court. 17/10/2008. Evidence of the plaintiffs was closed and 25/10/2008 a date was fixed for recording the evidence of defendants witnesses. 25/10/2008 The matter was adjourned. 05/11/2008 Government Pleader submitted affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 C.P.C. on behalf of defendant No.3/State Government in evidence. 20/12/2008 Defendant No.1/respondent No.1 closed its evidence. 27/8/2009 Application to amend the written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No.3/ State Government. 3/9/2009. I.A.22 which was filed on 17/8/2004 by the defendant No.3/State Government to take the written statement on record was dismissed and that order attained finality. 23/11/2009 Fresh application was filed on behalf of defendant No. 3/State Government to take the written statement on record which was allowed and the written statement was taken on record. Impugned order 18/01/2010 Amendment application filed on behalf of defendant No.3/ State Government to amend the written statement was allowed. Impugned order 3. 23/11/2009 Fresh application was filed on behalf of defendant No. 3/State Government to take the written statement on record which was allowed and the written statement was taken on record. Impugned order 18/01/2010 Amendment application filed on behalf of defendant No.3/ State Government to amend the written statement was allowed. Impugned order 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, the contention of Shri Gandhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that not only the principle of estoppel by conduct would apply to the State Government/Defendant No. 3, but the act of the learned Trial Court in allowing the application of the State Government/Defendant No. 3 and permitting it to file written statement is wholly unwarranted in the eyes of law for the simple reason that while rejecting I.A. No. 22 on 3/9/2009, earlier application dated 17/8/2004 filed on behalf of the State Government/Defendant No. 3 to take the written statement on record was rejected and it attained finality and hence, it will amount to res judicata. Learned Counsel further WP 6089/10 submitted that even if it is held by this Court that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in its stricto sensu, but certainly principles embodied under Section 11 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure would apply and, therefore, since the doctrine of res judicata is based on the public policy, therefore, the order of the learned Trial Court allowing the later application to take the written statement on record and taking the written statement on record is wholly unwarranted under the law. In support of his contention learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions, they are: (1) Maharajadhiraj Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur v. Hitendra Singh and Ors. AIR 1924 PC 202 ; (2) Satyadhyan Ghosal and Ors. v. Smt. Deoragin Debi and Anr. AIR 1960 SC 941 ; (3) Shrimati Sukhrani (Dead) by L.Rs. And Ors. v. Harishankar and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 1436 ; (4) Jagjeet Singh v. Bhopal Vikas Pradhikaran and Anr. 2006 (1) MPLJ 254 (Division Bench of this Court); and (5) Anandilal Ahirwar v. Satya Vrat Chaturvedi 2004 (1) MPJR 175 (Single Bench of this Court). 4. AIR 1960 SC 941 ; (3) Shrimati Sukhrani (Dead) by L.Rs. And Ors. v. Harishankar and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 1436 ; (4) Jagjeet Singh v. Bhopal Vikas Pradhikaran and Anr. 2006 (1) MPLJ 254 (Division Bench of this Court); and (5) Anandilal Ahirwar v. Satya Vrat Chaturvedi 2004 (1) MPJR 175 (Single Bench of this Court). 4. On the other hand, Shri Vivek Patwa, learned WP 6089/10 Deputy Government Advocate for Respondent No. 3/State Government argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that substantial justice has been done and in order to safeguard the interest of the State Government if the written statement has been taken on record, no interference is required and, hence, it has been prayed that this petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 6. The purpose of quoting the abovementioned relevant dates and what transpired in the learned Trial Court on those dates is that although several adjournments were sought by the State Government/Defendant No. 3 to file the written statement, but it was not filed. Not only this, on 23/8/2001, last opportunity was provided to the State Government to file written statement, but on the next date, viz.11/9/2001, the written statement was not filed although an application under Section of the Indian Companies Act was filed. Later on, again on 6/2/2004 for the second time, another last opportunity to file the written statement was given to the State Government/Defendant No. 3 and 19/2/2004 the date was fixed. On that date, viz.19/2/2004, WP 6089/10 again time was sought to file the written statement and, therefore, according to us, it was not lawful for the learned Trial Court to take the written statement on record, since several opportunities were granted to the State Government/Defendant No. 3 to file written statement and I.A. No. 22 dated 17/8/2004 which was an application to take the written statement on record was rejected on 3/9/2009. Apart from this, there was no special circumstances to allow the later application to take the written statement on record, particularly the order dated 3/9/2009 by which I.A. No. 22 was rejected had attained finality. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are applicable in the present case. 7. Apart from this, there was no special circumstances to allow the later application to take the written statement on record, particularly the order dated 3/9/2009 by which I.A. No. 22 was rejected had attained finality. The decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are applicable in the present case. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with costs. Impugned order dated 23/11/2009 is hereby set aside and the application which has been filed by the State Government/Defendant No. 3 to take the written statement on record is hereby rejected and eventually, the written statement is not taken on record. Since we have already set aside the order dated 23/11/2009 passed by the learned Trial Court, order dated 18/1/2010, by which application to amend the written statement has been allowed, also stands set aside. WP 6089/10 However, the Defendant No. 3/State Government may raise the validity of the order dated 3/9/2009 in appeal because in appeal all the interlocutory orders are open. 8. Counsel's fee Rs. 2,000/ (Rs. Two thousand) if precertified.