ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barmer (‘Trial Court’), whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein in Civil Original Suit no. 188/2017 (60/2009) under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’). The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:- (i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure-8), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer, in Civil Original Suit No.-188/2017 (60/2009) (State of Rajasthan & Ors. versus Rakesh Kumar & Anr.] may kindly be set aside and the written statement filed by petitioner may be taken on record. (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem just fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased khatedari land measuring 6 bigha of Khasra No. 246/89, situated at Village-Babuguleriya from respondent no. 4 through a registered sale deed dated 19.07.2006 (Annex.1). Thereafter, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the cancellation of a sale deed dated 19.07.2006 (Annex.1). It was contended in the plaint that the sale was illegal as it was executed in a notified area, Village Babuguleriya, where, under Section 3(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1961, sale of property to outsiders require prior permission from the competent authority and thus, the respondents claimed that the sale deed was void inasmuch as the property in dispute had been sold by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner, without the permission of the competent authority. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner failed to file a written statement, after the service of summons and therefore, his right of filing the written statement was closed vide order dated 24.11.2014 (Annex.3). Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed issues, concluded plaintiff’s evidence and fixed the matter for defendant’s evidence. 4 to the petitioner, without the permission of the competent authority. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner failed to file a written statement, after the service of summons and therefore, his right of filing the written statement was closed vide order dated 24.11.2014 (Annex.3). Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed issues, concluded plaintiff’s evidence and fixed the matter for defendant’s evidence. Subsequently, in the absence of the petitioner-defendant and his counsel, learned Trial Court initiated the proceedings ex-parte and passed a decree in favor of the respondents on 24.04.2018 (Annex.4). The petitioner then filed an application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 15.07.2022 (Annex.5), and the suit was restored to its original. However, the petitioner was not allowed to file a written statement, which led him to file a writ petition (13255/2022), which is still pending. On 15.03.2024 (Annex.6), the petitioner filed a new application with a written statement, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court on 09.09.2024 (Annex.8). Aggrieved of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.8), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Trial Court erred in passing the order dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.5) by closing the right to file a written statement, resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that, despite having appeared through counsel after being served with summons, his counsel before the learned court below inadvertently failed to submit the written statement, leading to the closure of this right on 24.11.2014 (Annex.3). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, being a layman with no knowledge of the legal intricacies, was unaware of the closure of his right until after an ex-parte decree was passed on 24.04.2018 (Annex.4). Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the ex-parte decree has since been set aside, and the suit restored to its original position; thus, the petitioner should be granted the opportunity to file a written statement to properly defend his interests. 6. Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while the learned trial court has permitted him to present evidence, it denied him the ability to file a written statement, which is essential to establish a substantive defense in the case. 6. Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while the learned trial court has permitted him to present evidence, it denied him the ability to file a written statement, which is essential to establish a substantive defense in the case. He submits that the suit involves significant issues, including the cancellation of a sale deed dated 19.07.2006 (Annex.1) executed in favor of the petitioner, directly impacting his rights. Learned counsel asserts that without a written statement, any evidence led would be rendered ineffective. He also submits that since the proceedings are still at the stage of recording defendant’s evidence, allowing the filing of the written statement at this juncture would not prejudice the respondents but would serve the ends of justice. Thus, the petitioner seeks the setting aside of the impugned order and prays for permission to submit the written statement to ensure a fair trial and adjudication of the suit on its merits. 7. Heard learned counsel of parties and perused material available on record. 8. This Court finds that the learned Trial Court has categorically observed that the suit was presented by the respondent-plaintiff before the learned Trial Court on 13.02.2009, after which summons were issued, by a registered post, to the petitioner-defendant on 13.02.2009. Subsequently, summons along with the copy of plaint were also sent to the petitioner-defendant by registered post, on the address, as mentioned in the Sale Deed (Annex.1). Furthermore, this Court finds that the petitioner-defendant sought an opportunity to file reply on 02.04.2009. Thereafter, upon perusal of the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2018 (Annex.4), this Court finds that the petitioner-defendant was duly represented by the advocate, however, neither the written statements were filed nor the petitioner-defendant has produced any oral or written evidence in his favour. It was also observed by the learned Trial Court that the advocate representing the petitioner-defendant as well as the petitioner-defendant did not appear before the learned Trial Court, on account of which the learned Trial Court passed the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2018 (Annex.4), ex-parte. 9. It was also observed by the learned Trial Court that the advocate representing the petitioner-defendant as well as the petitioner-defendant did not appear before the learned Trial Court, on account of which the learned Trial Court passed the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2018 (Annex.4), ex-parte. 9. This Court also finds that, being aggreived of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 24.04.2018 (Annex.4), the petitioner has preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC on 23.05.2018, which came to be decided by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.07.2022 (Annex.5), whereby the learned Trial Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 24.04.2018 (Annex.4) and the suit was restored to its original. However, this Court finds that along with the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, written statements were not filed. 10. This Court finds that the petitioner-defendant filed the application under Section 151 of CPC, along with the written statements on 15.03.2024 (Annex.6), i.e. approximately 1 year and 8 months from the date of the order, 15.07.2022 (Annex.5), by which the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, was allowed. 11. Furthermore, upon perusal of the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 151 of CPC, the petitioner has averred that on account of the pandemic COVID-19, there was a lockdown in the country and therefore, the petitioner was not able to file the written statements. It is also seen that in the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 151 of CPC, the petitioner-defendant has also averred that the lawyer representing the respondent no.1 had expired in the road accident in the year 2022, and therefore, he could not file the written statements. 12. This Court finds that the lockdown in the country, on account of the pandemic COVID-19, was imposed from 24.03.2020 and was lifted gradually in phases taking into account the need of the situation, and on 31.03.2022, the Indian Government rolled back COVID-19 restrictions in accordance with the notice dated 22.03.2022, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 12. This Court finds that the lockdown in the country, on account of the pandemic COVID-19, was imposed from 24.03.2020 and was lifted gradually in phases taking into account the need of the situation, and on 31.03.2022, the Indian Government rolled back COVID-19 restrictions in accordance with the notice dated 22.03.2022, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Also, this Court takes into consideration the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, while taking suo motu cognizance, in the case of In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 decided on 10.01.2022], whereby Hon’ble Apex Court has directed that for the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any gerneral special in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. The relevant para of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of In Re Cognizance (supra) is reproduced as under: “5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings.” Thus, this Court finds that, looking into the fact that the restrictions with respect to the lockdown, on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, were lifted way back on 31.03.2022, and the learned Trial Court had allowed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC on 15.07.2022 (Annex.5), however the petitioner has filed the application for taking the written statements on record, on 15.03.2024 (Annex.6), i.e. after approximately 1 year and 8 months of the order (Annex.5) and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for taking the written statements on record, could not be filed on account of lockdown imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, is wholly misconceived. Moreover, the submission of the petitioner-plaintiff that it was on account of the unfortunate death of the counsel representing respondent no. 1, that he failed to file his written submissions, is devoid of merit inasmuch as, this Court finds that the lawyer representing the respondent no. 1 had expired in the year 2022 and the petitioner had filed the application under Section 151 of CPC on 15.03.2024, i.e. approximately 2 years after the said incident and thus, the reason assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing an application dated 15.03.2024 (Annex.6), i.e. he was not able to file the application for taking written statements on record, on account of the unfortunate death of the counsel for the respondent no. 1, is not justified and is misconceived. 13. Also, this Court finds that the petitioner-defendant has failed to demonstrate before the learned Trial Court and this Court as to what precluded him from filing an application for taking his written statements on record along with the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the petitioner-defendant has failed to set up his case before the learned Trial Court, and on account of which, the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 151 of CPC for taking the written statements on record and thus, no interference is called for in the order dated 09.09.2024 (Annex.8) passed by the learned Trial Court. 14. Accordingly, in the light of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is dismissed. Stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.