properties cannot be transferred between defendants as stay order has been passed by civil court 

No. If the court has restrained defendants from alienating the suit property or creating third-party rights, they generally cannot transfer it—even among themselves. Such a transfer can still change ownership or possession and breach the order. Any such act may be set aside and could attract contempt, unless the court’s prior permission is obtained.

During the subsistence of an injunction order, any such transfer as proposed in your query will be considered as contempt of court order and the violater can be prosecuted under criminal laws.

Request judge to pass order as it is pending for year and defendants have not filed any reply for a year 

judge must be wanting to give time to defendants to file reply to avoid defendants going in appeal against his order of no WS 

The judge may be basically thinking: “Should I be strict about delay, or give one last chance?” That balancing act often causes delay. Politely nudge and ask for a fixed date for arguments.

judge must be having lot of cases on baord . hence not passing orders 

The judge has already relied on the second written statement while deciding the TI. So if the court now rejects that WS or refuses to set aside the No-WS order, it would contradict its own earlier order. Courts generally avoid putting themselves in that position. If you want movement, you’ll have to push and ask for a specific hearing on these applications or request the court to decide them as preliminary issues. Otherwise, they may remain pending till final arguments.

without knowing the case status no opinion can be rendered to your this second query, you may furnish more details or stage of the case or status of the case.

The case details and the case status are important for rendering any opinion to your query.

If the court has stated that the defendants have not filed the WS within the time stipulated in the law, then the WS filed at a later date may not be accepted by court.

If the defendant was permitted to file additional written statement then it would be subsequent to an event from ther plaintiff side.

On your first query, the injunction order you have quoted—restraining the defendants from “alienating the suit properties in any manner or creating any third-party interest”—is interpreted quite strictly by courts. The phrase “in any manner” is wide enough to include any transfer, even inter se between defendants, if such transfer alters title, possession, or legal rights.

The only limited exception sometimes argued is that transfer between co-defendants does not create a “third-party” interest. However, courts do not accept this mechanically. If the transfer:
changes the nature of ownership,
defeats the purpose of the suit, or
attempts to bypass the injunction,

then even an inter se transfer can be treated as a violation of the injunction and can attract consequences such as contempt or the transaction being declared void or non-binding on the plaintiff.

So, in practical terms, defendants should not transfer suit property among themselves during subsistence of such an injunction unless they obtain prior permission from the court.

Coming to your second and more nuanced issue regarding the No-WS (Written Statement) order:

A delay of nearly a year in deciding an application to set aside a No-WS order is not uncommon, especially in civil courts where judges often defer such decisions strategically rather than procedurally.

The likely reasons for the court holding back the order are as follows:

The court has already allowed the subsequent Written Statement to be taken on record (even if disputed) and has relied on it for the Temporary Injunction stage. This indicates that, in substance, the court has inclined towards permitting the defence, even if formally the No-WS order is not yet set aside.

Courts are often reluctant to decide such applications early because setting aside a No-WS order involves balancing strict procedural timelines (Order VIII Rule 1 CPC) with the principle of deciding matters on merits. Judges tend to postpone this decision to avoid prematurely foreclosing either side’s arguments.

By keeping the application pending, the court retains flexibility. If needed later, it can regularise the Written Statement; alternatively, it can still take a stricter view depending on how the matter evolves.

In your case, the fact that a second Written Statement (beyond 120 days) has been taken on record and even relied upon for the TI order strongly suggests that the court is not inclined to enforce the strict consequence of “deemed admission.” The pending status of your objection and the set-aside application is, in effect, procedural—while substantively the court has already diluted your advantage.

Courts sometimes adopt this approach to avoid appellate complications. A strict rejection of the Written Statement could be challenged and delay the suit further. By informally allowing the defence and keeping the issue pending, the court ensures the matter proceeds.

What this means for you strategically is important:

You should not rely heavily anymore on the argument of “deemed admission,” as the court’s conduct indicates that it is unlikely to base the final outcome solely on that ground.

Instead, your focus should shift to:
challenging the credibility and consistency of the defendants’ pleadings,
highlighting contradictions between the two Written Statements, and
pressing procedural objections at an appropriate stage (including appeal, if needed).

If you want to push the issue, you may consider seeking a speaking order or early decision on the pending applications, but be mindful that this may result in a formal order allowing the Written Statement, which could close that line of argument entirely.

In summary, inter se transfers between defendants are risky and can violate the injunction if they affect rights or defeat the suit. As for the No-WS issue, the court has effectively already leaned in favour of allowing the defence, and the delay is a tactical judicial approach rather than an oversight.

Then you need approach HC challenging the said order accepted WS