IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL (LODG) NO. 626 OF 2006 (LODG) NO. 626 OF 2006 (LODG) NO. 626 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 922 OF 1990 NO. 922 OF 1990 NO. 922 OF 1990 Messrs W.M.I. Cranes Limited ] .. Appellant (Ori.Defendant) Versus Messrs Anurag Sites ] .. Respondent (Ori.Plaintiff) Mr. Snehal Shah i/b M/s. Dhru & Co. for appellant. Mr. R.C. Shah for respondent. CORAM: R.M. LODHA & S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2006 P.C. : . The impugned judgment reads thus: "1. Heard counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Counsel for the Plaintiff points out that the Defendant has not filed the written statement though more than 15 years have passed. Counsel therefore prays that the decree may be passed under Order 8 Rule 10 of C.P.C., as the suit is only for recovery of money. 2. In the absence of written statement the averments made in the plaint are deemed to be admitted. The suit of the Plaintiff is therefore decreed under Order 8 Rule 10 of C.P.C., in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b)." : 2 : 2. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Taneja & Anr. Vs. Sunil Balraj Taneja & Anr. Vs. Sunil Balraj Taneja & Anr. Vs. Sunil Madan Madan Madan & Anr., AIR 1999, S.C., 3381 & Anr., AIR 1999, S.C., 3381 & Anr., AIR 1999, S.C., 3381 and the recent order passed by us on August 22, 2006 in Appeal No.598 of 2006 M/s. M/s. M/s. Meditronics Corporation of India Vs. Dr.Mrs. Meditronics Corporation of India Vs. Dr.Mrs. Meditronics Corporation of India Vs. Dr.Mrs. Salima Salima Salima A. Rais A. Rais A. Rais, the counsel for the respondent (original plaintiff) fairly submitted that the impugned judgment may not meet the test of judgment even for want of written statement in the light of the aforesaid two judgments. He fairly submitted that since the matter needs to be remanded, one opportunity may be given to the appellant for filing written statement upon payment of reasonable cost. 3. The counsel for appellant submitted that for the inconvenience caused to the respondents, the appellant is ready and willing to pay the cost of Rs.25,000/-. 4. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, we dispose of the Appeal by the following order: : 3 : (i) The impugned judgment dated 29th June, 2006 is set aside, subject to the appellant (original defendant) paying cost of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent (original plaintiff). (ii) The cost of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid by the appellant (original defendant) to the respondent (original plaintiff) within three weeks from today. The appellant (original defendant) is also permitted to file Written Statement within the aforestated time. (iii) The Suit, being Suit No.922 of 1990 shall be proceeded with accordingly. As the Suit is of the year 1990, we request the learned trial Judge to hear and decide the Suit expeditiously and preferably by March, 2007. Sd/- [R.M. [R.M. [R.M. LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] LODHA, J.] Sd/- [S.A. [S.A. [S.A. BOBDE, J.] BOBDE, J.] BOBDE, J.]