JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 18.2.2012 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Civil judge (junior Division), Abu Road (for short, 'the trial Court'), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 8, Rule 10 C.P.C. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 8, Rule 10 C.P.C. before the learned trial Court on 14.11.2011 praying therein relief of passing a decree against the respondent-defendants. In his application, the petitioner has averred that the written statement has been submitted by the respondent- defendants after expiry of 90 days and therefore the same is not liable to be taken on record and straightway decree be passed against the respondent-defendants under Order 8, Rule 10 C.P.C. While considering the application of the petitioner, the Court below has dismissed the same and has ordered that written statement submitted on behalf of the respondent-defendants be taken on record on payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. Mr. Shambhoo Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that there was no plausible explanation tendered by the respondent-defendants for submitting written statement beyond stipulated period of 90 days as envisaged under order 8 Rule I C.P.C. and therefore, the learned Court below ought not to have taken written statement on record. 4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 5. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is amply clear that while rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 10 C.P.C. and taking on record the written statement of the respondent-defendants with counter-claim, the learned Court below has considered all the pros and cons and has granted latitude to the respondent-defendants in the interest of justice. The learned Court below has also adequately compensated the petitioner-plaintiff for the lapses on the part of the respondent-defendants by awarding him cost of Rs. 1,000/-. 6. On thorough examination of the impugned order, in my considered opinion, the said order has neither occasioned failure of justice, nor grave injustice between the rival parties. It is a settled law that supervisory jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases such power is to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice. 1,000/-. 6. On thorough examination of the impugned order, in my considered opinion, the said order has neither occasioned failure of justice, nor grave injustice between the rival parties. It is a settled law that supervisory jurisdiction of this Court should be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases such power is to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice. As the learned Court below while passing the impugned order has not committed any error much less an error apparent on the face of record, I am not inclined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in the instant case. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is bereft of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed summarily.Petition Dismissed. *******