(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant to quash order Annex. 2 dated 29.3.2012 whereby the opportunity to file written-statement was closed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur on the ground that 90 days have already expired after service of notice upon the defendant-petitioner, so also, order dated 28.7.2012 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur upon application dated 9.7.2012 filed under Section 151, C.P.C. alongwith application under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay and for taking written- statement on record.
(2.) The main contention of the petitioner-defendant is that the plaintiff respondent preferred a suit for recovery of L 7 3,00,604/-, in which, after service of notice due to some unavoidable circumstances, reply was not filed by the petitioner- defendant and the trial Court closed the opportunity to file written- statement vide order dated 29.3.2012 while mentioning the words that "last opportunity was given for filing written-statement upto 16.2.2012", which is not proper because the trial Court was required to take into consideration the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner-defendant for granting adjournment but it has not been acceded.
(3.) Further, it is argued that an application under Section 151, C.P.C. alongwith application under Section 5, Limitation Act was filed for granting opportunity to the petitioner to file written-statement but the learned trial Court inspite of submitting cogent reasons that the petitioner-defendant's father died on 22.1.2012 the trial Court refused to grant opportunity to file written-statement which is totally against the principles of natural justice and the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India,2003 1 WLC(SC)CVL 384, and the judgment rendered by this Court , Onkarmal v. Kishore Kumar & Ors., 2011 WLC(Raj) 409therefore, the order impugned may be quashed.