*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9385/2009 and WRIT PETITION NO.9386/2009 and WRIT PETITION NO.9387/2009 and WRIT PETITION NO.9389/2009 Damji Hirji and Company. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Prakash Prabhakar Chellari & others. (WP 9385/09) Sheela Gajanan Navghare and others. (WP 9386/09) Leherchand K. Dharod. (WP 9387/09) Ramaben K. Modi. (WP 9389/09) ..Respondents ............... Mr.Karl Tamboly, Advocate i/b Mr.Dhiren Shah, for the Petitioner. Mr.Kunal Cheema, Advocate i/b B.K.Karle, for the Respondents. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 18th November, 2009. PC:- 1 The present Petitioner is the original Plaintiff who instituted the suits for ejectment and possession against the Respondents/ Tenants who are in occupation of the premises. The suit summons were served on 14.05.2009. According to the Petitioner, the written statements ought to have been filed by 13.06.2009 i.e. within 30 days from the date of service of the suit *2* summons, however, the Respondents filed the applications on 20.07.2009 seeking permission to file the Written Statements and the same have been allowed by the Trial Court by condoning the delay of about 35 days. It is, thus, crystal clear that within 65 days from the date of service of summons the Written Statements have been placed on record along with the applications for condonation of delay and permission to file the Written Statements. The Trial Court very much has discretionary powers to permit the filing of Written Statement within 90 days from the date of service of summons. The Trial Court has recorded the reasons for permitting the filing of Written Statements by condoning the delay, which according to the Trial Court, constitute sufficient cause. 2 The order passed by the Trial Court is just and fair and the same does not call for any interference whatsoever in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petitions being devoid of any merit, are dismissed summarily. 3 At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the building in question is in dilapidated condition and the Corporation has issued the notice under Section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. It is also submitted that the Petitioner proposes to redevelop the property under the Redevelopment Scheme and hence, the hearing of suits be expedited. In all fairness, the learned counsel for the Respondents does not oppose the said prayer. 4 Having regard to the nature of controversy, I expedite the hearing of suits. I hope and trust that the Trial Court will make an endeavour to decide the suits at early date. Needless to mention *3* that all contentions are left open to be addressed before the Trial Court. 5 Writ Petitions are dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)