JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.4.2019, whereby the petitioners' right to file written statement has been closed. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction on 11.12.2017. In the suit aforesaid, the respondents nos. 2 to 5 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to return the plaint. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 22.1.2019, while also requiring other defendants to file their written statement by the next date of hearing i.e., 5.2.2019, failing which, the right to file written statement would automatically be foreclosed. 3. A perusal of the proceedings of the learned trial Court reveals that despite peremptory order passed on 22.1.2019, the learned trial Court once again gave an opportunity to the defendants nos. 1 to 4 and 9 to 14 to file written statement and fixed the date as 5.2.2019. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 16.3.2019 on which date it was adjourned to 4.4.2019 awaiting written statement. On 4.4.2019, as no written statement came to be filed by the petitioners, right to submit written statement was closed and the matter was posted to 18.5.2019 for framing the issues. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a last opportunity be provided to the petitioners, on which date, they will be filing their written statement. 5. During the course of submissions, learned counsel informed that today the matter is posted before the learned trial Court for plaintiff's evidence. He informed that issues have been framed long ago on 29.8.2019. 6. A perusal of the proceedings and the facts available on record clearly shows that the petitioners are not only lethargic in their attitude, they rather intend to unnecessarily prolong the litigation. The suit is pending since 2017, on 22.1.2019 itself, the court had cautioned the petitioners to furnish their written statement by 5.2.2019 by way of peremptory order. Yet the Court did not close petitioners right and granted another opportunity to file the written statement by 16.3.2019. On the next date too, (16.3.2019) petitioners chose not to file their written statement. 7. Yet the Court did not close petitioners right and granted another opportunity to file the written statement by 16.3.2019. On the next date too, (16.3.2019) petitioners chose not to file their written statement. 7. On 16.3.2019, again the learned trial court showed leniency and in the interest of justice provided opportunity to the petitioners to file the written statement, which too, was not filed for which, the trial court was constrained to eschew petitioners' right of furnishing the written statement. 8. The matter does not end here. Even having suffered the order dated 4.4.2019, the petitioners did not take up any steps by way of filing application or writ petition, so as to get their right to file written statement resurrected. 9. The present writ petition too has been filed after six months from the date when right to file written statement was closed. Petitioner have not stated any reason, but alone plausible reason for not filing written statement despite several opportunities. 10. This Court is- of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the desired indulgence, which this Court grants quite liberally. If the litigants like the petitioners are granted indulgence, it will set wrong precedents and demoralise the subordinate Courts. 11. The writ petition therefore fails. 12. The stay application also stands disposed of.