-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.4949 of 2007 Bank of India ..Petitioner vs. Smt.Veena Gul Chainani ..Respondent Shri Ashish Kamat with Shri Nikhil Rajani for petitioner. Shri Nitin Mulay i/b Shri G.S.Godbole for respondent. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI S.C.DHARMADHIKARI S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. 22nd January, 2008 22nd January, 2008 22nd January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This petition challenges the order below Exh.11 in Special Civil Suit No.1038 of 2006. That suit is filed by the present respondent against the petitioner Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,55,583/- along with interest. The suit is filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. It appears from the record that the suit summons was served on 7th October, 2006. The appearance of the Advocate was also filed. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16th November, 2006 an application was moved for filing the written statement. That application was allowed but in the mean time the suit was transferred from one -2- Court to another and thereafter the Advocate could not follow up the matter. 2. However, it is pertinent to note that the application which was filed before the Trial Court, copy of which is at page 20, does not set out the cause which is now put forward. All that it says is that the written statement was prepared in draft by the Advocate and the draft was sent to the Bank for approval but because of year ending in March, the draft could not be approved. 3. The original plaintiff opposed the application and pointed out that no written statement order was rightly passed on 6th March, 2007 in as much as from 9th October, 2006 and even from the extended date that is on 16th November, 2006 the written statement was not filed. Accepting this plea of the respondent the application has been rejected. 4. After having perused the petition and the annexures thereto, including the impugned order and so also perusing the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to my mind, the delay was -3- explained by the petitioner Bank. Although the Advocate appeared and drafted the written statement and steps to file the written statement were being taken but the draft of the written statement requiring approval which took time. The learned Judge should have accepted the written statement of the petitioner Bank and condoned the delay by imposing costs. Ultimately, the affairs of the Nationalised Bank are such that matters are routed through several officers and final decision is taken at the highest level. It is not expected that the branch can proceed with the matter straightway. In such circumstances on account of administrative delay, the written statement could not be filed. Although these state of affairs are not to be condoned as a matter of course, yet, the Supreme Court on several occasions has taken a judicial note of the same and condoned the delay. In such circumstances, and considering the averments in the writ petition, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside but the petitioner must be put to some conditions. 5. Accordingly, if the written statement is filed within a period of 10 days from today with -4- costs accompanying the same quantified at Rs.5000/- payable to the respondent/original plaintiff, the Trial Court shall accept the written statement on record and proceed with the matter on merits and in accordance with law. In default, the impugned order stands confirmed and writ petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to Court. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)