IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.56 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2010 Tai Malang Pawar ...Appellant (Org. Plff.). v. Vitthal K. Jagtap & Ors. ...Respondents (Org. Defts.) Mr. Rupesh K. Bobade, APP For the Appellant. Mr. Surel S. Shah, adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 29, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 Appellant/Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.244/06 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division at Madha for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from disturbing possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. According to the plaintiff, she had purchased suit land admeasuring 1 acre 14 R from the defendants for consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- under the registered sale deed and she was also in possession but subsequently, defendants had started disturbing her possession. Defendants appeared but failed to file written statement within the time granted. Suit proceeded without written statement and was decreed. That decree was challenged in Regular Civil Appeal No. -2 - 132/07 by the defendants. The appellate Court, taking into consideration stake involved, set aside ex-parte judgment and decree subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff and remanded the matter back to the trial Court. That order is challenged in the present appeal by the original plaintiff. 3 It appears that though written statement was not filed, defendants have taken a plea in the appeal that the plaintiff is money lender and the sale deed was not to be acted upon and the document was executed only as security of certain loan advanced by her to the defendants and they continued to be owners and in possession of the property. Taken into consideration stake involved and the fact that defendants are the small cultivators, the appellate Court held that it would be in the interest of justice to grant them an opportunity to file written statement and to defend the suit. As they had failed to file written statement within the stipulated period, cost was imposed on them. In view of the facts and circumstances and the reasons noted by the First Appellate Court, I find that the impugned order was passed by the First Appellate Court only in the interest of justice so that the defendants, who were poor and small cultivators could properly defend the suit. Taking into consideration the circumstances, I do not see any - 3 - reason to interfere in the impugned order. 4 Therefore, Appeal stands dismissed. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)