JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2010 whereby the learned trial Court refused to take on record the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner in a suit for injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff as the application under Order 9, Rule 1 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against him already stood rejected by the learned trial Court. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the ex parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioner-defendant and on 1.11.2008, his application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. was allowed with cost of Rs. 200/-. Thereafter on 2.2.2009, the written statement has been filed by the defendant which was placed on record as is noticed in the order dated 21.2.2009 and copy of the application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. was given to the Counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter it appears that the said application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. remained pending for considerable period and vide order dated 15.9.2009, the learned Court below has thus noted that long time has elapsed since arguments on said application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. were heard and therefore, again the matter be fixed on 3.10.2009. However, thereafter it appears that the said application was dismissed for want of prosecution by the learned trial Court on 3.11.2009 and thereafter the impugned order appears to have been passed in light of these circumstances refusing to take on record the said written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff Mr. J.R. Patel submitted that since the application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. stood rejected by the learned trial Court on 3.11.2009, the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner cannot be taken on record. 4. Having heard the learned Counsels, this Court is of the view that in the interest of justice, since the written statement was filed by the defendant petitioner on 2.2.2009 and thereafter the application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. could not be heard by the learned Court below for considerable period as referred to above and its rejection on 3.11.2009 for want of prosecution, it appears that the defendant has been rendered defenceless for long period taken by the learned trial Court itself in deciding the application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. on merits. Consequently, subject to cost of Rs. 500/- by the defendant-petitioner, the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner is directed to be taken on record. 5. With the aforesaid observations this writ petition is allowed.Petition allowed. *******