Judgment Heard Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This revision is filed by the defendant-Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 20.01.2014 passed by Civil Judge No.2, Cachar at Silchar in Misc. Case No.24/2011 and Misc. Case No.25/2011 arising out of T.S. No.27/2000. By the impugned order, learned Civil Judge declined to take on record the written statement already filed by the revision petitioner (defendant) on 28.11.2011 (Annexure-13 to this revision petition) in the suit. So the short question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether learned Civil Judge was justified in not allowing the defendant to file the written statement or in other words whether learned Civil Judge was justified in not taking the written statement filed by the defendant on record in the suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff) for adjudication of the rights of the parties on merits. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am inclined to allow the revision in part and set aside the impugned order, with directions. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that on 14th July, 2014 (yesterday) I passed an order in the transfer petition filed by the petitioner herein arising out of same civil suit out of which this revision arises, being Tr.P.(C). No.30/2014 wherein this Court while dismissing the transfer petition directed the learned Civil Judge to decide the civil suit out of which this revision arises within a period of six months on merits. In the order, this Court observed that the suit is pending since last 14 years which caused concern to this Court due to its long pendency and obviously delay was caused due to delaying tactics indulged by the present petitioner which no court should countenance. This Court has however noticed that written statement was filed in the year 2011. In the order, this Court observed that the suit is pending since last 14 years which caused concern to this Court due to its long pendency and obviously delay was caused due to delaying tactics indulged by the present petitioner which no court should countenance. This Court has however noticed that written statement was filed in the year 2011. In order to do substantial justice and keeping in view the observation made by the Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association case [ (2005)6 SCC 344 ] and further having regard to the nature of factual controversy involved in the suit, I direct that written statement filed by the defendant on 28.11.2011 (Annexure-13 to this revision petition) be taken on record in the suit subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) payable by the petitioner. This cost of Rs.25,000/- would be deposited by the petitioner within one month from today in the Court below. On such deposit being made, it shall be paid to the State Legal Services Authority. Since this Court has already directed in order dated 14.07.2014 in Tr. P.(C) No.30 of 2014 for disposal of the suit within six months, the trial court will now frame the issues and proceed to decide the suit on merits on day to day basis so as to ensure that the suit is decided within six months. As already observed in the order dated 14.07.2014, no party will be granted any adjournment on any ground except on exceptional ground and if granted on any such ground then it would be subject to payment of cost and secondly, it should be for a short duration. Needless to observe, the trial Court shall decide the suit strictly in accordance with law on merits. In case, if the petitioner fails to deposit the cost within one month in terms of this order, then the written statement would not be taken on record. The trial court shall then proceed to decide the suit without written statement. A copy of this order be filed before the court below within a week to enable him to proceed in the trial as directed. No cost.