JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 15.02.2006 passed in R.A.39/2005 by the learned Presiding Officer, District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal came to be dismissed confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.01.1997 passed in O.S.No.351/95 by the learned Munsiff and JMFC, Hoskote. 2. Suit originally filed before the trial court was one for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. 3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties are addressed with reference to their rankings as stood in the trial court. 4. The brief facts are: plaintiff claims to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property consisting of built up portions bearing khatha No.23542054/1519, situated at Nalagalli, Hoskote. Plaintiff –Aminabi is the daughter-in-law of late Syed Mustafa Sab who was the owner of the schedule property. He had only son by name Syed Ghouse who is none other than the husband of plaintiff. The said Syed Ghouse died on 31.05.1987 leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. 5. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are stated to be daughters-in-law of brother of late Mustafa Sab. Schedule property was stated to be self acquired property of Syed Mustafa and upon his death it devolved upon Syed Ghouse and plaintiff. Plaintiffs claim that after one year to the death of said Ghouse the relatives of deceased Mustafa started requesting the plaintiff and asked plaintiffs to allow them (defendants) to be in possession of the schedule property assuring that it would be vacated at the direction of the plaintiffs. 6. Plaintiffs believed the version of defendants 1 and 2 and on mutual understanding the possession was given to defendants who entered the schedule permissive possession for over seven years as on the date of suit. It is also stated that plaintiffs required the suit schedule property for their family necessities and defendants did not reciprocate to the need and request of the plaintiffs. In this connection plaintiff No.1 got issued legal notice to the defendants calling upon to quit, vacate the schedule property and deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The defendants after receiving notice neither complied with nor replied. 7. In this connection plaintiff No.1 got issued legal notice to the defendants calling upon to quit, vacate the schedule property and deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The defendants after receiving notice neither complied with nor replied. 7. The defendants after service of summons did not appear nor filed their written statement the matter came to be adjudicated by trial court on 31.01.1997 by which the original suit came to be decreed. Thereafter upon the decree being passed against defendants they moved an application before the trial court and said application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC seeking setting aside the exparte decree passed against them in O.S.No.351/95. 8. Application came to be rejected by learned trial Judge. M.A.No.51/2000 was preferred against the order of rejection of the application. Miscellaneous appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court as per order dated 18.01.2003 and operative portion of the same is as under: “In the result, miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants against respondents under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC is allowed. Consequently, the order of the trial court passed in miscellaneous 6/97 dated 162000 is hereby set aside. Further miscellaneous petition No.6/97 filed before the lower court by these appellants is allowed as prayed. Consequently, judgment and decree dated 31.01.97 passed exparte in O.S.No.351/95 by the trial court is hereby set aside. However the trial court is directed to give an opportunity to the defendants for filing their written statement and to frame necessary issues and then by recording evidence of both parties to dispose off the suit on merits. However both parties are directed to cooperate with the trial court for disposal of the suit expeditiously. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs of this appeal.” 9. In accordance with the terms of disposal the matter was remanded to the trial court with a direction for giving an opportunity to the defendants to file written statement so as to enable them to contest the matter on merits. This time it was the turn of the plaintiffs to prefer C.R.P.No.1490/2003 against the defendants challenging the order dated 18.01.2003. 10. C.R.P.No.1490/2003 preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents came to be rejected by this Court on 04.11.2003. Thus, the order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court came to be confirmed. This time it was the turn of the plaintiffs to prefer C.R.P.No.1490/2003 against the defendants challenging the order dated 18.01.2003. 10. C.R.P.No.1490/2003 preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents came to be rejected by this Court on 04.11.2003. Thus, the order passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court came to be confirmed. Operative portion of the order passed by this court in C.R.P.No.1490/2003 is as under: “This revision is allowed in part. The order dated 18.01.2003 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in Misc. Appeal No.51/2000, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the trial court dated 06.01.2000 in Misc. Petition No.6/1997 and condoning the delay in filing the application and setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 31.01.1997 passed in O.S.No.351/1995 is confirmed. It is further ordered that the applicants in the application-respondents herein shall pay costs of Rs.1,500/- to the plaintiffs-petitioners herein. Cost shall be deposited within eight weeks from today. The trial court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously as directed by the appellate court.” 11. It is in respect of the proceedings in O.S.No.351/95 which came up for the third time before the trial court certain facts are worth mentioning. 12. The court notice was served on the parties on 16.04.2003 and from that date of proceedings reflected that on 04.06.2003 the matter without any progress was adjourned as Presiding Officer was transferred. On 06.08.2003 plaintiff was present but defendant absent and the matter was adjourned to 20.09.2003. On 20.09.2003 without any progress the matter was adjourned for filing the written statement of the defendants finally to 18.10.2003. On 18.10.2003 Presiding Officer was on leave and matter was adjourned to 06.10.2004. On 06.10.2004 defendant was absent his counsel prayed time and the matter was adjourned for filing the written statement of defendant finally to 17.01.2004. However on 17.01.2004 defendant was absent, his advocate prayed time. It was rejected. Written statement of the defendant was taken as `not filed’ on 17.01.2004. Next date of hearing was 28.01.2004 on which date defendant filed application I.A.11 under Section 151 along with written statement and the matter was adjourned to 07.02.2004. On 28.02.2004 matter was adjourned to 21.03.2004 from which date to 06.04.2004, on which date matter was adjourned for filing objections to I.A.11. On 26.05.2004 plaintiff files objections to I.A.11. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on two successive hearing dates. On 28.02.2004 matter was adjourned to 21.03.2004 from which date to 06.04.2004, on which date matter was adjourned for filing objections to I.A.11. On 26.05.2004 plaintiff files objections to I.A.11. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on two successive hearing dates. But on 29.07.2004, the application filed by defendant came to be rejected. Finally it was adjourned till 29.10.2004 on which date Judgment was pronounced. The operative portion of the said order is as under: “The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs. It is declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the Schedule property. The defendants are directed to deliver the possession of the Schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs within three months from this day.” 13. The litigation continues. Regular appeal No.39/2005 was preferred by defendants before the first appellate court. In the meanwhile it is pertinent to note that after the written statement was taken as not filed on 17.01.2004 there is an entry in the order sheet that the defendant filed application under Section 151 of CPC along with written statement. However application came to be rejected on 29.07.2004. Incidentally in the Judgment and decree passed on 29.10.2004, the learned trial Judge has observed as under: “In-spite of sufficient opportunities, the defendants have not filed their W.S. before the court, even after receipt of records. Hence, this court has no option was proceed to take the W.S. as not filed and posted for plaintiff’s evidence. PW.1 was further examined as PW.1 and documents got marked at Ex.P.1 to 14.” (underlining by me) 14. Thus, Judgment mentioned non filing of written statement regard being had to the fact that written statement filed by defendant was very much in control of the court and there is no mention either of application filed under Section 151 or written statement filed by the defendant. This is one of the slipperies which has been come across. 15. The result is written statement is available in the file but the order that was passed prior to the filing of written statement shows that written statement was taken as not filed. 16. The learned first appellate Judge did not notice the above aspect during regular appeal proceedings in R.A.No.39/2005. The said regular appeal came to be dismissed on 15.02.2006. The defendants have filed present regular second appeal in the second round of litigation before this court. 17. 16. The learned first appellate Judge did not notice the above aspect during regular appeal proceedings in R.A.No.39/2005. The said regular appeal came to be dismissed on 15.02.2006. The defendants have filed present regular second appeal in the second round of litigation before this court. 17. This court on 16.08.2012 while admitting the appeal framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Courts below were justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in its entirety on the basis of the inadequate and insufficient oral and material evidence available on record which do not substantially prove the title of the plaintiffs? (2) Whether the Court below was right in rejecting the I.A.11 seeking permission to file written statement by its order dated 29.07.2004 and proceeding to decree the suit exparte without affording further reasonable opportunity to these defendants to defend their case? After hearing the following additional substantial question of law arises for consideration: “Whether the proceedings in O.S.No.351/95 and R.A. No.39/2005 ended in complete disposal?” 18. Learned counsel for defendants would submit the learned appellate Judge differed from the rules of evidence that are applicable to the case on hand and the principles of natural justice do not find a place in the Judgment and decree. Though the defendants are having a very good case on merits they had to lose because of non availability of opportunity by the trial court. The learned counsel would further submit that the defendants are made the scapegoats for the error and lapses that were not committed by them. 19. Learned counsel for plaintiffs Sri V.R. Datar for Sri Chandrakanth R Goulay would submit that exhaustive and unlimited opportunities were provided by trial court and first appellate court. It was not the case of non-granting of opportunity. 20. He would further submit that the defendants were never duty bound or prompt towards the court proceedings. They had only one agenda and it was to protract the proceedings. On the other hand opportunities granted were not utilized by the defendants. They were bent upon dragging on the proceedings and in turn they started forwarding lame excuses insofar as proceedings are concerned. 21. It was further submitted that the original suit is of the year 1995 and it has been the negative approach of the defendants that has made disposal a delayed one. They were bent upon dragging on the proceedings and in turn they started forwarding lame excuses insofar as proceedings are concerned. 21. It was further submitted that the original suit is of the year 1995 and it has been the negative approach of the defendants that has made disposal a delayed one. Learned counsel would further submit that the defendants are aware of their meritless case and are bent upon protracting case with the only intention to squat over the schedule property. 22. Insofar as first phase of disposal before the trial court, suit was decreed simplicitor and defendants had not filed the written statement. 23. For all the practical and legal purposes it was an exparte judgment that was amenable to order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. 24. In the first occasion the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was rejected. Thereby trial court passed the Judgment. However the defendant preferred appeal against said order. Miscellaneous Appeal allowed and matter was remanded. Judgment passed in Miscellaneous appeal came to be confirmed by this court as stated above and it was remanded to the trial court. 25. The proceedings when the matter came up before the trial court went in its own way after being remanded by this court. Earlier to remand by this court even the first appellate court had remanded the matter with a direction to give an opportunity to the defendants to file written statement and proceedings therein indicate that even after granting the second chance, defendants were not prompt to come out from the track of protracting proceedings and the court took written statement as not filed. Later defendants filed an application under Section 151 of CPC and same was marked as I.A.11. 26. In the over all circumstances of the case, the written statement and application became silent documents and went unnoticed from the knowledge of everyone including the court. Judgment was passed wherein the suit was decreed. 27. In this connection, it is necessary to mention that learned trial Judge erred seriously in this matter when the application was filed by defendants along with written statement. However defendants were never prompt or regular in the proceedings and did not file written statement in time which is reflected by proceedings but it was for the court to dispose of the application that was filed along with written statement. 28. However defendants were never prompt or regular in the proceedings and did not file written statement in time which is reflected by proceedings but it was for the court to dispose of the application that was filed along with written statement. 28. The tone and tenor of the Judgment passed by the learned trial Judge show that it has considered the case for adjudication sans written statement. It was against the said Judgment and decree defendants preferred appeal in R.A.No.39/2005 and as observed above the matter is in the domain of this court for the second time. 29. The principles of natural justice are used for claiming opportunity in many areas such as whenever written statement or objections or adducing evidence or not conducting cross examination take place. 30. When orders are passed, the aggrieved person comes under the banner of principles of natural justice. In many cases opportunity given are not utilized or exhausted on the other hand an opportunity is sought once again and it becomes a ground for urging remedy because matter to be disposed sans written statement or objections or cross examination. The lapse of the trial is observed. The trend of the defendants in their approach towards the proceedings is not proper nor appreciable. It could be seen that they allowed the proceedings to go on thereafter leisurely sought opportunity and matter is remanded and then also they continue with their snail pace and irregularity. After delay they pull up socks and go before the first appellate court seeking relief of setting aside the ex-parte decree. This time the appeal in R.A.No.39/2005 was dismissed. In the totality of circumstances the suit was filed on 18.08.95 we are in 2019 almost 24 years have completed. It has been a long journey of a legal battle without seeing the light of disposal in finality. It is under the circumstances no-doubt full rights of the defendants are not adjudicated in the sense the entire disposal till first appellate court is without written statement and effective participation of the defendants in the proceedings. In the further circumstances the trial court should have taken notice of the written statement and complied with the remand orders of the first appellate court. Having said that the original suit came to be disposed and order passed by the trial court is suit is decreed with costs. 31. In the further circumstances the trial court should have taken notice of the written statement and complied with the remand orders of the first appellate court. Having said that the original suit came to be disposed and order passed by the trial court is suit is decreed with costs. 31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4507/2019 SLP(c) No.35428/2017 – Robin Thapa Vs Rohit Dora has observed in paragraph 8 as under: “8. Ordinarily, a litigation is based on adjudication on the merits of the contentions of the parties. Litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as possible, adjudication be done on merits.” 32. With all above happenings as observed by me when once the matter gets adjudicated it should be after churning out the rights and duties, pleadings and evidence of the parties. 33. Insofar as present case is concerned, the adjudication is not complete and total as the defendants finally had no opportunity to file their written statement. The written statement is on file but the fact that it is to be considered for the purpose for further proceedings of the case and that it did not happen in the first phase of proceedings. It is to be seen that though not till eternity as far as possible the endeavour shall be towards disposal on merits instead of default by parties. Further the first appellate court also failed to observe the same. 34. In the over all circumstances of the case, I am of the sincere but firm finding that defendants deserve an opportunity to contest the case on merits in a time bound frame but not without directing them to pay the costs of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiffs which shall include the expenditure incurred by the plaintiffs, wherein case has not seen the light of disposal despite closure of almost 24 years that it is one short of quarter century. 35. In the result full and effective opportunity was not available to the defendants-appellants besides the trial court finding that the written statement not filed despite the same was available. 36. In the circumstances, I find neither Judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.351/95 nor Judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.39/2005 by the first appellate court is proper as they have not underwent opportunity to the defendants. 36. In the circumstances, I find neither Judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.351/95 nor Judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.39/2005 by the first appellate court is proper as they have not underwent opportunity to the defendants. This time the defendants deserve to be directed finally to maintain promptness and punctuality before the court. 37. The Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is liable to be set aside so also Judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. Hence, the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed and matter is remanded to the trial court. (i) Learned Judge shall frame issues on the very second hearing of the matter. (ii) Defendants shall pay Rs.30,000/- Cost shall be deposited before trial court within 30 days from today. (iii) Plaintiffs are entitled to withdraw the deposit after appearance before the trial court. (iv) The plaintiffs also are at liberty to file documents and to examine the witnesses. The parties shall appear before the trial court without waiting for notice on 03.09.2019. The written statement filed by defendants to be considered for further proceedings. Plaintiff shall tender herself for cross examination by the defendants and the defendants shall conduct and complete the cross examination on the same day. Further defendants be given an opportunity to adduce evidence and both parties are at liberty to file documents and examine their respective witnesses and cross examine the opposite witnesses. The entire process of proceedings before the trial court be completed not beyond an outer limit of 60 days from the date of first hearing i.e., 03.09.2019. The learned trial Judge shall continue the proceedings from the very date 03.09.2019. It is made clear that violation of any condition for disposal of the case by either of the parties entail them for forfeiture of their rights conferred under this appeal. Learned counsel for appellant Sri V R Datar requests for reducing the amount of cost. I find in the circumstances of the case the request is not acceptable. Hence rejected. It is seen that this court on 17.02.2012 has passed an order directing the appellant/defendants to pay Rs.5,000/- by way of rent every month thereafter as a condition for staying the operation of the decree that was sought to be executed at that time. I find in the circumstances of the case the request is not acceptable. Hence rejected. It is seen that this court on 17.02.2012 has passed an order directing the appellant/defendants to pay Rs.5,000/- by way of rent every month thereafter as a condition for staying the operation of the decree that was sought to be executed at that time. Considering the possession of the schedule property is with the defendants despite disposal of the case, the same arrangement of payment of Rs.5,000/- by defendants to the plaintiffs shall continue till the disposal of further proceedings before the trial court.