ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of plaintiffs is directed against the order dated 2.3.2015; whereby the trial Court has taken on record the written statement filed by the defendants. 3. Defendants filed written statement in compliance of order dated 18.2.2015 passed by trial Court. There is no challenge to the aforesaid order passed on 18.2.2015; whereby, the defendants were permitted to file the written statement on the next date of hearing. Challenge is only made to the order dated 2.3.2015 on which date the written statement was filed and taken on record. 4. Facts necessary for disposal for this petition are to the effect that in response to the notice in the suit, defendants No.1 and 2 had appeared before the trial Court on 9.7.2012 and 24.8.2012 respectively. Thereafter, they had filed an application under Order XI rule 12 CPC. The same was decided on 31.8.2012 and the suit was dismissed. Thereafter by the order of appellate Court dated 4.12.2013, suit was restored to its original number. Under such circumstances, no grievance can be made as rightly held by trial Court that written statement was not filed after entering appearance till the suit was restored to its original number by the orders of trial Court as no negligence on the part of defendants can be attributed. Therefore, defendants filed written statement as directed by trial Court on 18.2.2015 and since they have filed written statement on 3.2.2015 in compliance of aforesaid order, the trial Court has rightly found that there is no occasion for the trial Court not to accept the written statement so filed. Accordingly, trial Court has dismissed the application. 5. Further Order VIII rule 1 CPC is in fact in the realm of procedural law and incorporation of aforesaid provision was keeping in mind the need for expeditious trial of the civil causes. There is a limitation prescribed over the discretion vested with the trial Court; however, the said power being regulatory in nature,need to be exercised keeping in mind justice, equity and good conscience. Definitely, aforesaid discretionary power cannot be allowed to be exercised subjectively, and trial Court is expected to justify extension of time for filing of written statement in the ends of justice recording its satisfaction. 6. In the instant case initially the suit was filed. Definitely, aforesaid discretionary power cannot be allowed to be exercised subjectively, and trial Court is expected to justify extension of time for filing of written statement in the ends of justice recording its satisfaction. 6. In the instant case initially the suit was filed. Consequent upon decision on the application filed under Order XI rule 12 CPC on 31.8.2012, suit dismissed. Thereafter, proceedings were filed before the appellate Court and on 4.12.2013, by the orders of appellate Court suit was ordered to be re-registered. Upon perusal of the order-sheets, trial Court has found that since 4.12.2013 the hearing of suit has been deferred due to miscellaneous proceedings related to filing/production of documents and exchange of documents between the parties. On 18.2.2015, trial Court permitted the defendants to file written statement on the next date of hearing. No challenge has been made to the aforesaid order dated 18.2.2015. Thereafter, written statement has been filed by defendant on 2.3.2015 and same was taken on record. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be said that the trial Court while accepting the written statement by impugned order dated 2.3.2015 has committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in the context of Order VIII rule 1 CPC. 7. As regards, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Rani Kusum (Smt.) v. Kanchan Devi (Smt.) and other [ (2005)6 SCC 705 ], and Bismilla Bee v. Arjuman Aara and others [ 2014(3) JLJ 97 =2014(3) MPLJ 593], in the opinion of this Court there is no dispute as regards principles underlying therein. But, looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case same are quite distinguishable and are of no assistance to the petitioner. In the result, petition stands dismissed being bereft of merits.