dismissed for default. CMA No.33 of 2011 was filed for its restoration, which was also dismissed on contest on 2nd December, 2011. Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party Nos. 1(a) to 1(h) filed F.A.O No.2 of 2012, which was allowed vide order dated 12th February, 2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Cuttack directing learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack to restore the suit to its file. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an application for substitution of Defendant No.1, namely, S.K. Raja on 30th August, 2015. At that juncture, the Defendant Nos.2 to 5-Petitioners learnt that the written statement filed by them on 5th December, 2009 was not accepted by the Court. Hence, an application under Order VIII Rule 9 C.P.C. was filed for acceptance of the written statement. Learned trial Court holding that there is an inordinate delay in filing the application for acceptance of the written statement, rejected the same vide order dated 8th February, 2010 under Annexure-4. He, therefore, prays for acceptance of the written statement and to permit Defendant Nos.2 to 5-Petitioners to contest the suit. 4. Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs-Opposite Party Nos. 1(a) to 1(h) submits that although the written statement was filed much earlier before commencement of trial, but no petition along with the same was filed for acceptance of the written statement by the Defendant Nos.2 to 5-Petitioners. After a delay of one year, an application was filed for acceptance of the written statement. As such, learned trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the petition for acceptance of the written statement. He, however, submits that by the time the petition for acceptance of the written statement was rejected, trial of the suit had not commenced. But in the meantime, the
