:1: :1: :1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4581 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.M.J.Jamdar for the petitioners. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Ld.Senior counsel with Mr.Sudhir Prabhu for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. It appears from the record that in this Special Civil Suit, a Writ of summons was issued on 8.6.2006. The Writ of summons was served on 2.12.2006. On 22.12.2006 the Respondent Corporation filed its appearance and prayed for time. Upon that application, Notice was issued to the present petitioner, but he did not oppose the same and therefore time was granted as prayed therein. :2: :2: :2: 2. It was brought to my notice that Written Statement was not filed and therefore on 6.12.2007, an Application in identical terms was moved by the Respondent Corporation and without any opportunity to the petitioner to oppose the same, the said Application has been granted. 3. It is brought to my notice that the Written statement was filed on 15.3.2007. The grievance of the petitioner plaintiff is that after the expiry of the period stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC, the Written Statement could not have been taken on record without any notice to the petitioner and without any explanation for the same being filed, after the delay. It is in such circumstances, that the petitioner applied by an Applcation (Exhibit-10) that the Written Statement should not be taken on record and an order of ‘No Written Statement’ be passed. 4. On that application, the learned :3: :3: :3: Judge has passed the following order : ." The defendant filed the Written Statement on the detailed date. Moreover, no Written Statement order has not been passed. Therefore, filing the Application suo-moto is unnecessary, therefore is filed. " 5. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd and Ors. delivered in Civil Appeal No. 1572 of 2007 decided on 26.3.2007. 6. The Supreme Court has held that if no reasons are assigned to justify the acceptance of the Written Statement after the expiry of the time period, then, the course open is to remit the matter back to the Trial Court. 7. Following this decision, and since no orders have been passed on the application of the petitioner plaintiff, but, the same is merely taken on record, interest of justice would be subserved, if it is directed that the :4: :4: :4: application Exhibit-10 is reheard by the Trial Court after giving due notice to the respondent-Corporation and without being influenced by the order passed on 15.3.2007. The Trial Court to abide by the law laid down by the Supreme Court and render its decision on this application as expeditiously as possible. Petition disposed off. No costs. (JUDGE)