ORDER : Petitioner being the Defendant-2 in a Partition Suit in O.S.No.4287/2000 is knocking at the doors of writ Court for assailing the order dated 04.10.2017 at Annexure-M whereby the learned I Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru having favoured 6th Respondent’s applications in I.A.Nos.49 & 50 has permitted the filing of Written Statement on a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to Plaintiff No.3 & Defendant Nos.1 & 2. 2. After service of notice, the contesting Respondent6 having entered appearance through her counsel vehemently resists the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been grounded. 3. Having heard the matter at length and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence for the following reasons: (a) Suit is inter alia for a decree of partition of the property in question by meets & bounds; there were upshot cases arising from this suit and a connected suit in O.S.No.806/2000, that comprised inter alia the very same property; petitioner was before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.4940/2003 for challenging the order arising from O.S.No.806/2000 and the same came to be disposed off vide order dated 24.09.2003 in terms of a Memo filed by the petitioner himself to the effect that the dispute has been amicably settled and that the 6th respondent had no intention to continue both the suits; however, long thereafter in W.P.Nos.13948/2008 c/w W.P.No.14094/2008 arising from some orders made in O.S.No.4287/2000, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court specifically observed as to the validity of the said settlement as under: “It is also to be noticed that the plaintiffs were claiming that the suits are being withdrawn as settled out of Court. Though the Courts below have dismissed the two suits as not pressed – any alleged settled was void. This is evident from a plain reading of Order XXIII Rule 3 r/w Order XXIII Rule 3B … The Court below could not remain oblivious to these provisions in a seriously contested suit for partition.” The said judgment thus in so many words has declared that the alleged settlement on which the withdrawal of one suit, if not both was founded, was void and accordingly restored that suit to the Board; that being the position, the contention of so called “settlement” cannot come in the way of filing of Written Statement. (b) By virtue of magistra dicta namely, the declaration of voidness of the settlement by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which has attained finality in the absence of further challenge thereto, the arguable interest of the 6th respondent remains intact in the subject property and therefore as an incidence of co-ownership/joint ownership, the right to litigate for it’s division becomes exercisable as long as the said property continues to be joint; on this inarticulate premise the Court below in its discretion has accorded leave to file the Written Statement; such discretionary orders do not merit a deeper examination at the hands of writ Court, vide SADHANA LODH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., & ANOTHER (2003) 3 SCC 524 . (c) The vehement contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the dismissal of suit as withdrawn on the ground of pleaded “settlement” operates as estoppel is a matter for consideration at the hands of learned trial Judge since it is essentially a matter of evidence and this Court need not undertake deliberation on the same; the Court below too has given some reason for not accepting the said contention and thereby granted leave to file the Written Statement; there is lot of force in the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that a settlement being void is one thing and the void settlement being kept open is another; in the latter, it is open to the petitioner to estope the claim of the respondents by leading appropriate evidence to establish such a settlement has been acted upon and petitioner has altered his position to his detriment; (d) Lastly, there is yet another reason for this Court to abstain from interference in the leave granted by the Court below; the Written Statement is filed of course, belatedly is true; however some explanation which the 6th respondent has offered for the delay brooked is found to be plausible by the learned Judge of the Court below and this Court cannot run a race of opinions with him; the grant of leave for filing the Written Statement is conditioned by cost of Rs.10,000/-payable to Plaintiff -3 and Defendants -1 & 2; this however appears to be on a lower side regard being had to length of delay and therefore needs to be revised upwardly; it is tritely said that there is no prejudice which cannot be remedied by awarding costs. In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits, fails; however, all contentions of the parties including the estoppel are kept open for being debated on the floor of the Court below. The cost awarded by the learned trial Judge is enhanced to Rs.75,000/-(Seventy Five Thousand) only which the awardees shall apportion inter se equally; the 6th respondent shall deposit the cost in the Court below within four weeks or before the next date of hearing of the suit, whichever is later, failing which the impugned order stands rescinded on its own and consequently the Pleadings filed by the 6th respondent shall stand eschewed from the suit record. Learned judge of the Court below is requested to try & dispose off the subject suit within an outer limit of one year, and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.