ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. Defendants in O.S. No. 5066/2000 being aggrieved by order dated 17.10.2015 Annexure-H, rejecting I.A. No. 13 filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file written statement by condoning the delay is before this Court. 2. I have heard the arguments of Sri K.N. Dayalu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and later on, joined by Sri G. Krishnamurthy learned senior counsel appearing on his behalf and Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S. Rajendra with the leave of the Court and perused the records. 3. The short point that requires to be considered in the present writ petition is; "Whether order of the trial court dated 17.10.2015 Annexure-H rejecting the application of the defendants and not permitting them to file the written statement is to be sustained or set aside? 4. Facts in brief which has led to filing of this writ petition can be crystallized as under:- One Smt. Lakshmidevamma (since deceased) filed the suit in question against the writ petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction and at the first instance, obtained a judgment and decree on 31.01.2001, which undisputedly was an ex-parte judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the same, 2nd defendant alone filed Misc. 553/2001 and after contest, said petition was allowed by order dated 04.02.2006, whereunder, a direction was issued by the trial court directing the petitioner therein i.e., 2nd defendant to file the written statement on 28.02.2006 and proceed with the case from the stage at which it came to be disposed of by the trial court. Being aggrieved by this order, L.Rs. of original plaintiff filed C.R.P. No. 150/2006 which came to be dismissed on 21.08.2008 by this Court and during the pendency of the revision proceedings, there was stay of the order passed in Misc. 553/2001. Not being satisfied by the order passed by this Court in CRP No. 150/06, the L.Rs. of the deceased plaintiff pursued the matter before the Apex Court by filing Spl. Leave Petition in Spl. Leave Petition No. 28411/2008 and SLP also came to be dismissed on 06.09.2010. 553/2001. Not being satisfied by the order passed by this Court in CRP No. 150/06, the L.Rs. of the deceased plaintiff pursued the matter before the Apex Court by filing Spl. Leave Petition in Spl. Leave Petition No. 28411/2008 and SLP also came to be dismissed on 06.09.2010. Suit had been restored to its file by trial court and it was found that notice is required to be issued to 1st defendant and accordingly, ordered for the same and the 2nd defendant i.e., the 2nd petitioner herein was represented by the learned counsel and as such, awaiting the appearance of the 1st defendant, the matter was adjourned from time to time on account of non service of notice on 1st defendant. Thereafter, at the instance of the plaintiff, an application came to be filed for substituted service to 1st defendant namely through paper publication and it was allowed and there afterwards, 1st defendant appeared before trial court on 23.01.2012. As on the said date i.e., on 23.01.2012, neither the 1st defendant nor 2nd defendant had filed the written statement. There afterwards, the proceedings before the trial court continued and on account of certain I.As. having been filed and allowed/dismissed, aggrieved parties were pursuing their grievance before this Court in writ petitions. On 13.10.2014, application in question i.e., Annexure-F came to be filed by the defendants under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file written statement, which affidavit was sworn to by 2nd defendant not only on his behalf but also on behalf of 1st defendant. This application was resisted to by the original plaintiff and after considering the rival contentions, trial court by the impugned order rejected the same on the ground that in spite of specific direction issued by the court which adjudicated the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC had not been complied and there were no acceptable reasons worth considering for permitting the applicants/defendants to file their written statement. Hence, said application came to be dismissed. 5. Learned Advocates appearing for the parties, reiterated the grounds urged in the application as well as the objections and supporting their arguments by relying upon the judgments referred to herein below, are for assailing the impugned order and/or supporting the impugned order. Re: Citations relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners:- (i) 2007 (1) SCC 765 (State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Re: Citations relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners:- (i) 2007 (1) SCC 765 (State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Town Municipal Council) (ii) 2007 AIR SCW 5184 (Loh Vanizya Udyog Private Limited Vs. Rickie Khosla & Another) (iii) 2004 (2) KCCR 1337 (DB) (Mohammed Anwar(deceased) by Lrs. Vs. Sabir and Others) (iv) 2010 (5) KCCR 3591 (S. Chaya Devi and Another Vs. H. Manjuramanaswamy and Others) (v) (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 46 (Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Kumar and Others) (vi) AIR 2006 Supreme Court 396 (Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Kumar & others) (vii) 2005 (2) KCCR 1401 (Kailash Vs. Nanhuku & Others) (viii) ILR 2007 KAR 1893 (The State of Karnataka Represented by Revenue Secretary Vs. H.B. Munivenkatappa) Re: Citations relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent:- (i) AIR 2007 Supreme Court 67 (Tea Auction Ltd. vs. Grance Hill Tea Industry and Anr.) (ii) Arbitration Appeal Nos. 5 and 103 of 2009 (Sati oil udyog limited vs. Avanti Projects and Infrastructure Limited) (High Court of Gauhati) 6. Suit in question has been filed prior to the amendment of the CPC namely before amendment to Order 8 of CPC. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that the procedural law has to yield substantial justice or to put it differently when procedural law is pitted against substantial justice, such procedural law will have to yield to substantial justice. 7. In the instant case, written statement is sought to be filed after 16 years from the date of filing of the suit. Though learned advocates appearing for the parties have elaborately and extensively canvassed their respective contentions, this Court is of the considered view, it would suffice, if few dates are referred to, it would be sufficient enough to put a quietus to the point formulated hereinabove and they are as under, which is also discussed by this Court to answer the point formulated hereinabove. 8. Suit O.S. No. 5066/00 came to be decreed on 31.01.2001 ex-parte, which was questioned by 2nd defendant alone by filing Misc. No. 553/2001 and the said petition was allowed on 04.02.2006. A direction came to be issued by the court while allowing the Misc. Petition, which adjudicated the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Said direction is to the following effect:- "The court will further proceed with enquiry in respect of the said suit. No. 553/2001 and the said petition was allowed on 04.02.2006. A direction came to be issued by the court while allowing the Misc. Petition, which adjudicated the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Said direction is to the following effect:- "The court will further proceed with enquiry in respect of the said suit. Records and papers of O.S. 5066/2000 be placed before this court on 28.02.2006. Petitioner herein is directed to file his appearance along with his written statement on that day. No separate court suit summons will be issued to him. Court will proceed from that that stage further. In case petitioner herein does not appear in O.S. 5066/2000 on that day, defendant No. 2 would again be placed ex parte and suit would proceed further. There is no order as to costs." (Emphasis supplied) 9. This order allowing the Misc. Petition was challenged by the L.Rs. of deceased plaintiff in CRP No. 150/06 and said order allowing Misc. petition passed in Misc. 553/01 dated 04.02.2006 came to be stayed by this Court in CRP No. 156/2006. Thereafter CRP No. 150/2006 came to be disposed of on 21.08.2008 and during the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, order passed in Misc. 553/01 was stayed or in otherwords, it was not operative. Thus, 1st defendant could not have filed written statement as ordered in Misc. Petition 553/2001 on 28.02.2006. 10. It is thereafter, L.Rs. of deceased plaintiff filed Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. There was stay of all further proceedings in the original suit i.e. O.S. No. 5066/2000. However, at this juncture itself, it is apt to note that between the date of dismissal of CRP No. 150/06 i.e., 21.08.2008 to the date of granting of stay by the Apex Court in SLP No. 28411/2008, there was no order of stay of the proceedings in O.S. No. 5066/2000. It is there afterwards, the matter was taken up by the trial court and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for 2nd defendant, trial court had issued notice to 1st defendant though he had been placed ex-parte in the original suit and in the earlier round as well as in Misc. 553/01 since it was of the firm view that fresh notice is to be issued and as such, trial court ordered issuance of court notice to 1st defendant by order dated 26.03.2011. 11. Thereafter, matter was adjourned from time to time to enable the plaintiff to take steps and the plaintiff having taken steps and notice having not been served on 1st defendant, plaintiff had filed an application u/O. 5 Rule 20 CPC viz., for substituted service of suit summons through paper publication and said application having been allowed on 22.11.2011 resulted in appearance of the 1st defendant before the trial court on 23.01.2012. Thus, as on 23.01.2012, both defendants were before the trial court, were aware of not only the order passed by the Apex Court dismissing SLP filed by the plaintiff but also direction that had been issued in Misc. 553/2001, whereunder they had to file written statement on 28.02.2006. Still being aware of the said direction which was issued, they did not choose to file the written statement when they appeared on respective dates i.e., when 2nd defendant appeared on 28.02.2006 and 1st defendant appeared on 23.01.2012. They continued to appear, seek time to file written statement, file applications after applications and there after waking up from their slumber, they filed an application on 13.10.2014 vide Annexure-F seeking permission to file written statement. One intriguing factor which requires to be noticed is that defendants 1 and 2 are none other than own brothers and though defendant No. 2 had appeared on 28.02.2006 after matter being restored to file, had allowed the 1st defendant to sit on the fence and watch the proceedings and obviously had ensued that defendant No. 1 did not appear before court. Only when notice was served on 2nd defendant by substituted service i.e., paper publication and left with no other option, 2nd defendant was per forced to appear and that too through same counsel who represented 2nd defendant as is evident from the order sheet dated 23.01.2012. 12. Be that as it may, the affidavit supporting the application is also a mirror to the fact that both the defendants are conducting the case jointly, fully aware of the proceedings, orders passed by the courts and particularly directions which had been issued in Misc. 553/01. 12. Be that as it may, the affidavit supporting the application is also a mirror to the fact that both the defendants are conducting the case jointly, fully aware of the proceedings, orders passed by the courts and particularly directions which had been issued in Misc. 553/01. In paragraph-1 of the affidavit supporting the application, 2nd defendant who has sworn to the affidavit states that he has sworn to the said affidavit on his behalf and also on behalf of 1st defendant. Thus, it requires to be reiterated that defendants 1 and 2 who are none other than uterine brothers, were fully aware with the facts of the case, have been watching the proceedings, evading suit summons and successfully ensuring for past 16 years that proceedings does not move before the jurisdictional court. Having succeeded in their attempts to stall the proceedings they have made yet another futile attempt by filing the application in question and have tried to prevent the plaintiff or her L.Rs. from proceeding with the suit. 13. This observation has been made, since 1st defendant after having been served with the suit summons through court notice had filed application on 23.01.2012 under Section 151 CPC contending inter alia that plaintiff had erroneously described his name and his actual name being T. Ramanna, plaintiff had erroneously described him as Kamaraj and as such, same is required to be corrected. Thus, 1st petitioner - 1st defendant was aware as on 23.01.2012 that he was required to file written statement in O.S. No. 5066/2000 undisputedly. Court below had dismissed said application by order dated 18.09.2014 and the same was assailed before this Court in W.P. No. 12385/15 and this court by observing that nothing comes in the way of the 1st defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff irrespective of the name of 1st defendant being shown as Kamaraj and not T. Ramanna, and he would be at liberty to contest the proceedings in the name of T. Ramanna and is entitled to establish the same before the trial court, writ petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2015 Annexure-E. Even, in said writ petition, 1st defendant did not seek leave to file written statement. Immediately after filing of the application to correct the name, the application in question Annexure-F came to be filed on 13.10.2014 and sequence of events would indicate that defendants have been intentionally dragging on the proceedings. 14. It is no doubt true that Court has got power to condone the delay for filing the written statement only if cause is shown to be sufficient and where ends of justice command for such delay being condoned. In other words, cause shown should be bona fide and not tainted or mala fide. 15. In the instant case, as already noticed hereinabove, defendants being uterine brothers and having contested the matters before various forums, being aware of the developments which were taking place in the instant case, have ensued that they would not seriously contested the matter on merits and play only in the outer field became aware that all doors were closed, and as such they have thought of filing the application in question and they have undertaken this exercise as a last option and sought for disclosing their defence by filing the written statement, by seeking the leave of the court to condone the delay. It requires to be noticed that assuming and accepting that the order passed by the court below which adjudicated Misc. 553/01 had been stayed in CRP No. 150/2006 and thereafter, further proceedings had been stayed by the Apex Court in SLP No. 28411/08, yet it did not prevent them from filing the written statement immediately after the dismissal of the SLP on 06.09.2010. However, in the case of the 2nd defendant, was aware of the restoration of the suit and was represented by his advocate, as could be seen from the order sheet commencing from 10.01.2011. It is only when plaintiff's counsel submitted that there is no necessity to issue the court notice to 1st defendant since he had been placed ex-parte, which also came to be objected to by learned counsel for 2nd defendant, trial court ordered for issuance of court notice to 2nd defendant on 22.11.2011 by allowing application for substituted service. Even from 26.03.2011, till 2nd defendant appeared after publication of suit summons in the newspaper i.e., 23.1.2012, 1st defendant did not file his written statement though matter had listed on more than 8 occasions. 16. Even from 26.03.2011, till 2nd defendant appeared after publication of suit summons in the newspaper i.e., 23.1.2012, 1st defendant did not file his written statement though matter had listed on more than 8 occasions. 16. Thus, no explanation is forthcoming from the affidavit supporting the application in question and written statement being taken on record and there being no explanation offered by 1st defendant as to why he did not file his written statement from 14.01.2011 to 23.01.2012 he cannot be heard to contend impugned order is erroneous. That apart, even after 2nd defendant appeared on 23.01.2012, till the date of filing of the present application on 13.10.2014, no explanation is offered as to why defendants did not file their written statement. However, reason assigned is that there was an application filed by 1st defendant for correction of his name and same was objected and as such, he could not file the written statement. As noticed hereinabove, defendants having not exhibited any diligence, it is not desirable to condone such delay, as it would amount to condoning the acts of the defendants for which they have to blame themselves. 17. As discussed herein above, facts would clearly indicate that defendants are intentionally avoiding and evading to file the written statement and opportunity which was available to them immediately after dismissal of the SLP on 06.09.2010, not having been availed by the 1st defendant and when 2nd defendant after his appearance on 23.1.2012, did not make attempts to file written statement and they did not make any attempts either to seek for extension of time to file written statement or to permission to file written statement at a later stage are all facts which would clearly indicate that defendants have been intentionally evading to file the written statement and protracting the proceedings and as such, this Court refrain from exercising the revisional jurisdiction, since impugned order does not suffer from jurisdictional error. 18. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- (i) Writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs. (ii) Order dated 17.10.2014 at Annexure-H is hereby affirmed. (iii) Petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff within an outer limit of 6 weeks and failure to pay such cost, registry of the court is directed to issue certificate to the respondent to enable her to recover the same from the petitioners by filing Execution petition. (iii) Petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent-plaintiff within an outer limit of 6 weeks and failure to pay such cost, registry of the court is directed to issue certificate to the respondent to enable her to recover the same from the petitioners by filing Execution petition. Ordered accordingly.