ORDER : (Rekha Borana, J.) 1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pokaran in Civil Original No.279/2017 (525/2016) (29/2013) whereby the application under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC as preferred on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2 has been rejected. 2. Vide the application under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC, it was prayed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2 that they had signed the written statement as prepared by their the then counsel and handed over the same to him. However, the same was not filed by the counsel and subsequently, the matter was transferred to the newly constituted Additional District Court at Pokaran. When the matter was transferred to Pokaran, it was fixed for plaintiff evidence. Therefore, the counsel appointed at Pokaran was under the impression that the written statement had already been filed. It is only on 16.05.2024, when the counsel read the order-sheet of the said date, that he came to know that the written statement had not been filed on behalf of the said defendants. Therefore, the application under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC was preferred on the very next date. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was only because of the matter been transferred from Jaisalmer to Pokaran that the fact of written statement having not been filed did not come to the knowledge of the defendants. They were under the impression that the written statement as signed by them was filed by their counsel at that point of time. 4. Learned counsel further submits that even otherwise, on 11.08.2016, no effective order to close defendant evidence was passed by the Court and the matter was directed to be posted for framing of issues. Therefore, there being no formal order of closing the defendant evidence, the fact missed the notice of the counsel too. 5. Learned counsel further submits that after completion of the plaintiff evidence, the matter was posted for defendant evidence and therefore too, the fact of written statement having not been filed, did not come to the knowledge of the counsel for the defendants. It seems that even the plaintiff as well as the Court were also not aware of the said fact as had they been aware, the matter would not have been posted for defendant evidence. It seems that even the plaintiff as well as the Court were also not aware of the said fact as had they been aware, the matter would not have been posted for defendant evidence. Because the matter was posted for defendant evidence, learned counsel for the defendants too, proceeded on with the said assumption. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the averment of the defendants not being aware of the written statement having not been filed, is totally misconceived as after the defendants having been proceeded ex parte, an application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC was preferred on their behalf which was allowed on 16.04.2016. While allowing the said application, the Court specifically granted one last opportunity to the defendants to file their written statement and the matter was directed to be posted on 28.05.2016. On 28.05.2016, last opportunity was granted to file written statement at the cost of Rs.1,000/-. The said was the last order-sheet before the Court at Jaisalmer. Then the matter was transferred to District Court at Pokaran wherein after service, learned counsel for the defendants put in appearance on 08.03.2018 for the first time. On the said date, time was sought by counsel for the plaintiff for plaintiff evidence and the matter proceeded on for plaintiff evidence. Learned counsel therefore, submits that it is crystal clear on record that despite time been granted even on cost, written statement was not filed on behalf of the defendants and it cannot be argued on their behalf that they were not aware of the said fact. 7. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that order impugned be affirmed and the writ petition be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. For the proper adjudication of the fact whether the petitioner-defendants deserve to be granted a liberty to file the written statement at this stage, a reference to the order-sheets of the suit in question shall be relevant. 10. The suit in question was admittedly filed before the District Judge, Jaisalmer in the year 2013. When despite service, none appeared on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3, an order to proceed ex parte against them was passed. 10. The suit in question was admittedly filed before the District Judge, Jaisalmer in the year 2013. When despite service, none appeared on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3, an order to proceed ex parte against them was passed. On 27.09.2013, vakalatnama (P.A.) on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2 was filed by counsel and an application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC was also filed on the said date. On 16.04.2016, the application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC as preferred on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2 was allowed at a cost of Rs.500/- and they were permitted to file written statement by the next date i.e. 28.05.2016. On 28.05.2016 also, the written statement was not filed and hence, the last opportunity was granted at a cost of Rs.1,000/-. On that date, it was observed that if by the next date i.e. 11.08.2016, the written statement would not be filed, the same would be deemed to have been closed. 11. However, the matter was then transferred from District Judge, Jaisalmer to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer. In the order-sheet of 11.08.2016, it was specifically observed as under: ^^izdj.k esa vf/kŒ izfroknh us vUrxZr vkns'k 9 fu;e 7 ds vkns'k dh ikyuk esa tokcnkok is'k ugha fd;kA^^ The matter was therefore, posted for framing of issues and the same were framed on 05.10.2016. The order of 05.10.2016 specifically reflects that the issues were framed with the consent of both the parties. The matter was then posted for plaintiff evidence. 12. However, the plaintiff evidence was not led and subsequently, the parties were issued notices for presence at Pokaran (Camp Court) as, vide order dated 09.06.2017 of the District Judge, Jaisalmer, the matter was transferred to the newly constituted Additional District & Sessions Court, Pokaran. After service, power for defendant Nos.1 to 3 was filed by their counsel on 08.03.2018 and as no plaintiff evidence had been led by the said date, the matter was posted for plaintiff evidence only. 13. The order-sheet dated 18.07.2018 before the Court at Pokaran is relevant for the present purposes. After service, power for defendant Nos.1 to 3 was filed by their counsel on 08.03.2018 and as no plaintiff evidence had been led by the said date, the matter was posted for plaintiff evidence only. 13. The order-sheet dated 18.07.2018 before the Court at Pokaran is relevant for the present purposes. The said order-sheet read as under: ^^oknh cxMwjke o mlds vf/koDrk Jh Hkokuh'kadj pkaMk miŒA izfroknh la[;k 1]2]3 ds vf/koDrk Jh pUnuflag jkBkSM+] miŒA izfroknh la[;k 4]5 dh vksj ls jktdh; vf/koDrk Jh mEesnflag jkBkSM+ miŒA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izfroknhx.k la[;k 1]2]3 ds fo:) fnukad 22@7@13 dks ,d if{k; dk;Zokgh gS ,oa fnukad 16@4@16 dks izfroknh la[;k 1]2 dks iqu% jsdMZ ij fy;k x;k rFkk izfroknh la[;k 3 ds fy, dksbZ vkns'k ugha gSA izfroknhx.k }kjk tokcnkok is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA rRi'pkr~ fnukad 05@10@18 dks rudh;kr dk;e dh xbZA oknh cxnwjke o xokg xkth [kka ds lk{; esa vkt 'kir i= is'k fd;s x;sA udy izfroknhx.k vf/koDrkx.k dks nhykbZ xbZA i=koyh okLrs lkŒ oknh ¼ftjg½ fnukad 06@8@18 dks is'k gksA^^ 14. The matter then proceeded further for plaintiff evidence and during the said course, several applications were preferred by both the parties. Even an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3), CPC was preferred on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 alongwith the list of documents. On the same date i.e. 02.05.2019, as no objection for taking the said documents on record was made on behalf of the plaintiff, the Court permitted the documents to be taken on record. On 22.01.2020, plaintiff evidence was completed and the matter was posted for defendant evidence. The matter then kept on being posted for the said purpose and on 22.07.2022, last opportunity for defendant evidence was granted at a cost of Rs.1,000/-. On the next date i.e. 03.09.2022, the affidavits of defendant Nos.1 & 2 for examination-in-chief were filed and a copy of the same was served on counsel for the plaintiff. However, on the same date, an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was also filed by counsel for the defendants and the matter then proceeded on the said application and also on the application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC as filed by counsel for the plaintiff on the next date i.e. 16.09.2022. 15. However, on the same date, an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC was also filed by counsel for the defendants and the matter then proceeded on the said application and also on the application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC as filed by counsel for the plaintiff on the next date i.e. 16.09.2022. 15. Ultimately, on 27.02.2024, the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed by the defendants was rejected at a cost of Rs.1,000/- and the application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC was allowed on 13.05.2024. The matter was then, on the said date, posted for defendant evidence on 27.05.2024. On 27.05.2024, it was observed that the written statement on behalf of the defendants had not been filed and the matter is pending for defendant evidence since four years. Therefore, it was directed that both the witnesses i.e. defendant Nos.1 & 2 remain present positively on the next date i.e. 02.07.2024. On the said date i.e. 02.07.2024, the application under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC was preferred on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2 with the submissions as mentioned in the preceding paras. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the present one is a classic example of irregularities not only by the parties but also by the Courts concerned. Interestingly, after the application under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC having been allowed and specific time been granted for filing the written statement, the same was not filed and it was in the presence and with consent of the counsel, that the issues were framed. After the matter been transferred to the Court at Pokaran, the power was filed on behalf of contesting defendants on 08.03.2018 and without there being any written statement on behalf of the said defendants on record, an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3), CPC was filed on behalf of the said defendants and the same was even allowed as no objection was raised by learned counsel for the plaintiff qua the same. While allowing the said application, the documents as sought to be placed on record by the defendants, were permitted. 17. Prior to that even an application under Order 11 Rule 17, CPC was preferred on behalf of the defendants and vide the said application, it was prayed that the two registered documents be called from the office of Sub-Registrar, Pokaran. While allowing the said application, the documents as sought to be placed on record by the defendants, were permitted. 17. Prior to that even an application under Order 11 Rule 17, CPC was preferred on behalf of the defendants and vide the said application, it was prayed that the two registered documents be called from the office of Sub-Registrar, Pokaran. Although, the said application was rejected vide order dated 13.11.2018 but interestingly, no fact to the effect that the written statement had not been filed on behalf of defendants was taken into consideration. 18. More interestingly, in the order-sheet dated 18.07.2018, although it was reflected that no written statement been filed on behalf of the defendants, on 22.01.2020, after the plaintiff evidence having been completed, the matter was posted for defendant evidence. To add to the same, the matter proceeded on for defendant evidence for a period of more than four years and no objection, whatsoever, was raised on behalf of the plaintiffs. 19. The height of irregularity reached when on 27.05.2024, the Court specifically observed that no written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendants and no evidence had been led on their behalf for a period of more than four years, but still, the matter was posted for defendant evidence on 02.07.2024. 20. In view of the above facts, it is clear that not any one party or person can be blamed for series of irregularities committed. The version of the defendants that they were unaware of the written statement having not been filed, cannot be relied upon as the order-sheet dated 18.07.2018, after the matter having been transferred to the Court at Pokaran, specifically reflects the said fact. However, it is clear on record that despite no written statement been filed on behalf of the defendants, an application under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC had been filed. Even, the documents as sought to be placed on record by the defendants were permitted. Further, the matter was even posted for defendant evidence and remained pending for the said purpose for years. 21. In the said circumstances, the defendants as well as their counsel deserve to be granted a benefit of doubt that they remained under the presumption that the written statement had been filed. Further, the matter was even posted for defendant evidence and remained pending for the said purpose for years. 21. In the said circumstances, the defendants as well as their counsel deserve to be granted a benefit of doubt that they remained under the presumption that the written statement had been filed. In a situation where, the Court itself committed series of irregularities in posting the matter for defendant evidence despite there being no written statement filed on their behalf, the parties cannot alone be blamed and be penalized for the same. Further, even the affidavits of defendant Nos.1 & 2 as filed for examination in chief, were taken on record and they were even directed to remain present for cross-examination. Furthermore, no objection, whatsoever, was raised even on behalf of the plaintiff for all this period. 22. In the above facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed. The order impugned deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. The application under Order 8 Rule 1, CPC as preferred on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2 is hereby allowed. 23. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 shall be under an obligation to file their written statement, positively, on the next date fixed. No further opportunity, whatsoever, shall be granted for the said purpose. On the written statement been filed on the next date, the learned Trial Court shall take the same on record subject to a receipt of Rs.10,000/- deposited by defendant Nos.1 & 2 with the District Legal Services Authority qua the costs, being furnished along with the same. 24. It is made clear that after the written statement been filed on the next date, the learned Trial Court shall proceed further with the defendant evidence and defendant Nos.1 & 2 shall be under an obligation to keep themselves present for cross-examination on the next date. 25. If the receipt of the cost deposited and the written statement are not filed on the next date, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed further with final arguments in the matter as no defendant evidence could be permitted to be led in the matter. 26. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.