Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Petition­ers are defendants in O.S. No.242 of 2006, Rajendra v. Yogendra Kumar &0rs., The suit is pending before Civil Judge (S.D.), Mau. Defendants-petitioners filed the writ­ten statement extremely late and in spite of the fact that earlier repeated opportuni­ties had been provided to them. Ultimately, written statement was filed on 6-10-2009. Through order dated 27-7-2012, Civil Judge (S.D.), Mau refused to take the writ­ten statement on record. Against the said order, petitioner filed Civil Revision No.45 of 2012, which was dismissed on 6-4-2013 by District Judge, Mau, hence this writ petition. 2. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that petitioners were not vigilant and had filed written statement quite late. 3. However, in view of Supreme Court authority reported in Kailash v Nanhku 2005 (2) JCLR 543 (SC) : 2005 JIR 739 (SC): AIR 2005 SC 2441 , writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case petitioners file an application for recall of the order dated 27-7-2012 before the trial Court within three weeks from today after getting prepared a draft of Rs.25,000 in the name of the plaintiff and annexing pho­tostat copy of the said draft along with the application, then the trial Court may sym­pathetically consider the said application and in case the trial Court decides to al­low the application and take on record the written statement filed by the defendants-petitioners then the application shall be allowed on payment of Rs.25,000 as cost and the draft shall at once be handed over by the petitioners to the plaintiff-respon­dent before the Court concerned. Petition disposed of.