ASHA Vs. RASHMI TRILOKCHANDRA HEDAOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter by consent of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) Though served, none appeared for the respondents. The respondents remained absent.

(3.) The petitioner questions the legality, propriety, and correctness of impugned order dated 15.1.2014, passed by learned Seventh Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Wardha, below Exh.38, in pending Regular Civil Suit No.122 of 2013, whereby the application for permission to file the written statement filed by the petitioner/defendant was rejected. In the result, therefore, the defendant was deprived of filing written statement though it was pleaded that due to intermittent ailment of defendant No.1, written statement could not be filed earlier.