At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner firstly argued that the petitioner/plaintiff was not present when this order was passed, therefore, the matter be remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the application after giving hearing to the parties. He stated that the earlier order shows that on 3.10.2011 the case was adjourned to 4.10.2011, but later on the impugned order was passed on the same day. Similarly, in the order, it is written that opportunity was given for replication, but the issues were framed on the same day. Learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further argued that the application under Order 7 Rule 6 C.P.C. was not decided on merit and was kept pending with the observation that it shall be decided after concluding evidence by both the parties with regard to the said facts. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that the written statement has not been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days, which can be extended upto 90 days. It was filed much later after the filing of the application under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. by the present petitioner-plaintiff. No written request was made and no reasonable ground has been given in the application, therefore, this order should be set aside and defence of the defendant be
