(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition challenging the order dated 30-8-2003 by which the Trial Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioners for grant of adjournment to file written statement, and order dated 27-9-2003 by which it rejected the petitioners' application seeking permission of the Trial Court to file written statement.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to file suit as an indigent person. The Trial Court issued notice in respect of the indigency of the respondent. The prayer for adjournment for filing the written statement was made by the petitioners which was rejected by the Trial Court on 30-8-2003, but, subsequently, petitioners filed written statement alongwith an application to the Trial Court to take written statement on record which was also rejected. The contention of the petitioners is that the suit itself was not registered under Order 33 Rule 8 or under Order 33 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the circumstances, there was no question of filing written statement in the case. Only a short reply was to be filed in respect of indigency of the respondent. In the circumstances, the Trial Court committed error in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for filing written statement. He further submits that prayer of the respondent to file suit as an indigent person was rejected by the Trial Court. In the circumstances, petitioners are entitled to file written statement, in case respondent pays Court fee as required under Rule 11 of Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent submits that though the prayer of respondent to file suit as pauper has been rejected but against the said order, respondent has filed revision in this Court and in case revision is allowed, respondent will be permitted to file suit as pauper. In the circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioners.