ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No. 153/2022 (Dalpat Singh & Anr. v LRs of Jabbar Singh and Ors.). 2. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:- “That the petitioner most respectfully humbly prayed that-A. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed, B. By an appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued and the order dated 25.09.2024 (Annex-9) passed in the civil Suit No.153/2022 titled as Dalpat Singh & Anr vs LRs of Jabbar Singh & ors, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the opportunity of Written statement of the Defendant No.1 may kindly be closed. C. By an appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued and in the alternative the Defendant may kindly be directed to file their Written statements and raised their defence before the Trial Court and then after the Trial Court may direct to proceed further in accordance with law for disposal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. D. By an appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued and the respondent may kindly be directed to maintain the status quo of the land in question.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents/defendants for permanent and mandatory injunction in order to restrict the alienation of the plots no. F-292 and E-1435, which are proposed to be alloted by RIICO, in lieu of the acquisition of the land of Khasra No. 384 and 385 of Village Kharbera, Tehsil Luni and for issuing a lease deed in favour of the plaintiff. The said suit was registered on 09.11.2022 and service upon the respondents/defendants was completed on 19.11.2022. On the same day, i.e. 19.11.2022, the respondents/defendants sought time to file reply, while the petitioners/plaintiffs sought an interim order. Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for granting interim relief in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, aggrieved of which, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metro, which was further transferred to hearing before the Additional CIvil Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metro ('Appellate Court'). 4. Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for granting interim relief in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, aggrieved of which, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metro, which was further transferred to hearing before the Additional CIvil Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metro ('Appellate Court'). 4. Learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.03.2023, against which the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred a writ before this Court, which came to be decided on 10.04.2024 (Annex.2), whereby the parties were directed to maintain the status quo. Thereafter, the respondents/defendants preferred a reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), while raising objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit, and learned Trial COurt after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.4) allowed the application while considering the objection raised by the respondents/defendants regarding the maintainability of the suit. 5. Aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Trial Court (Annex.4), the defendants/respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge-I, Jodhpur, which came to be allowed vide order dated 22.03.2024, against which the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred a writ before this Court, whereby, vide order dated 27.05.2024 (Annex.5), this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. 6. In the meanwhile, the respondents/defendants filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on 19.11.2022 (Annex.6), the reply thereof was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on 09.05.2023 (Annex.7). Thereafter, on 25.09.2024, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC to close the written statements of the defendants/respondents, which came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.09.2024 (Annex.9). 7. Thus, aggrieved of the order dated 25.09.2024 (Annex.9) passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC inasmuch as the suit was instituted way back on 09.11.2022 and the service of summons upon the defendants/respondents completed on 14.11.2022, therefore, it was the obligatory and statutory duty of the respondents/defendants to file their written statements, which they have failed to do so and therefore, the written statements of the defendants/respondents ought to be closed. He also submits that the respondents/defendants appeared before the learned Trial Court on numerous occasions, however, they did not seek liberty to file their written statements, and therefore, on account of the casual behavior shown by the respondents/defendants in filing their written statements, the learned Trial Court ought to have closed the written statements of the respondents/defendants. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs further submits that not only the respondents/defendants have failed to file their written statements in the prescribed time limit stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, the respondents/defendants have also not filed any application under Section 148 of CPC, which provides for the extension of the time-limit, upon the request of the defendant along with a sufficient cause, being mentioned for the delay in filing their written statements, in the absence of which, the learned Trial Court ought to have closed the written statements of the petitioners/plaintiffs. He also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Salem Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353 , whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the prescribed time limits under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Court, ought to be complied with, by the Court and that the said time limit may be extended only in cases of exceptional circumstances, which is not the case here and therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have closed the written statements of the respondents/defendants. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs also submits that the by way of filing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the respondents/defendants have raised the contentions in a similar manner as raised by them in the reply to application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, and the defense raised by the respondents/defendants cannot be a ground for consideration, while filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and therefore, the pendency of the application does not entitle the respondents/defendants to extend the limitation period for filing the written statements. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2019) 12 SCC 210 . The relevant para of the judgment reads as under: "14. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2019) 12 SCC 210 . The relevant para of the judgment reads as under: "14. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents also relied upon R.K. Roja v. U.S. Rayudu and Anr. (supra) for the proposition that the Defendant is entitled to file an application for rejection of plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 before filing his written statement. We are of the view that this judgment cannot be read in the manner sought for by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. Order VII Rule 11 proceedings are independent of the filing of a written statement once a suit has been filed. In fact, para 6 of that judgment records "However, we may hasten to add that the liberty to file an application for rejection Under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure cannot be made as a ruse for retrieving the lost opportunity to file the written statement”." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs also submits that applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC are two separate applications and they ought to be dealt independently and in the instant case, the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 25.09.2024 (Annex.9), whereby the learned Trial Court has erred in refusing to close the written statements of the respondents/defendants, inasmuch as even if the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is pending, the proceedings would not be affected by closing the written statements of the respondents/defendants. 12. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the order of the learned Trial Court is just and does not warrant interference inasmuch as the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has to be adjudicated first and without disposing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court cannot proceed with the trial. 13. 12. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the order of the learned Trial Court is just and does not warrant interference inasmuch as the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC has to be adjudicated first and without disposing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, the Court cannot proceed with the trial. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the delay with regard to application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, is to be attributed to the petitioners/plaintiffs themselves as the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was filed by the respondents/defendants on 19.11.2022 (Annex.6), however the petitioners/plaintiffs chose to file a reply to the said application on 09.05.2023 (Annex.7). He also submits that on 17.08.2024 (Annex.9), learned Trial Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 500/-, while affording a last opportunity to the petitioners/plaintiffs to argue the matter on application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, which demonstrates that the petitioners/plaintiffs have caused delay in the proceedings. He also relies upon the following judgment: a. Sh. Laxmi Narayan Sharma v Smt. Rajeshree Khandelwal and Ors. [S.B.C.W.P. No. 4379 of 2016, decided on 17.10.2016], passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. b. Saleem Bhai & Ors. v State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2003 SC 759 . c. Smt. Bina Roy A. Sangma and Ors. v Shri Ismail Ch. Marak, passed by the Hon'ble Meghalaya High Court, [CRP No. 23 of 2024, decided on 07.11.2024] 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused material available on record and judgments cited at the Bar. 15. This Court finds that prima facie there is no force in arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs with regard to the application filed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, inasmuch as, upon perusal of the order-sheet dated 25.09.2024 (Annex.9), passed by the learned Trial Court, it is seen that the learned Trial Court has merely put the matter for arguments on the next date, on the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 and has not rejected the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC. The relevant part of the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 (Annex.9) is reproduced as under: Therefore, upon perusal of the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 (Annex.9), passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs inasmuch as the Trial Court has categorically observed that the parties would first complete their arguments on the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 and thereafter, would advance their arguments on the applications filed under Order VIII Rule 1 as well as Order XI Rule 12 and 14 of the CPC. 16. The petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition at a very pre-mature stage, since upon the perusal of the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 (Annex.9), passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court finds that nothing has been ordered by the learned Trial Court which is detrimental to the interests of the petitioners/plaintiffs and the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs, still survive. Therefore, this Court deems it fit not to grant indulgence in the order dated 29.04.2024 (Annex.9), passed by the learned Trial Court. 17. Moreover, this Court finds that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs renders no assistance to this Court inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court was delving into the cases where the learned Trial Court had either allowed the application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC or rejected the same, whereas in the present case, the application under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC, filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs has not been decided yet and the grounds that the petitioners/plaintiffs have raised before this Court, can be raised before the learned Trial Court, while the application under Order VIII Rule 1 is heard, and therefore, the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 (Annex.9), passed by the learned Trial Court warrants no interference by this Court. 18. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Any application, if pending, shall also stand dismissed.