1 wp-8469-11.sxw mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8469 OF 2011 Divakar Vishwanath Surve ..Petitioner Vs. Siddharth Govind Dudhaavadkar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Neel Helekar for the Petitioner CORAM : R M SAVANT, J. DATE : 12th December 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition takes exception to the Order dated 22-6-2011,passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court, Bombay, by which Order, the Application Exhibit 13 filed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. original Defendant No.1 in RAE Suit No.1997 of 2007 for condonation of delay in filing the Written statement came to be allowed. 2 The facts as disclosed by the impugned Order are that the substituted service of the writ of summons was effected on the Defendant No.1 on 18-9-2009 by pasting. This was pursuant to the application made by the Plaintiff after tracing out the address of the Defendant No.1. The facts further disclose that from March 2010 to May 2010, the Defendant No.1 was unwell as he was suffering from Malaria and Jaundice as also from 6-6-2010 to 26-10-2010. The case of the Defendant No.1, as can be seen, from the impugned order is that he had requested for a copy of the plaint from the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff refused to furnish the same on account of which he had to apply for certified copies. The copy of the notice issued by the 2 wp-8469-11.sxw Advocate for the Defendant No.1 to the plaintiff was produced before the Trial Court as also the reply to the said notice from the Plaintiff dated 3-7-2010, by which, the Plaintiff informed the said Defendant No.1 that he does not have the copies and that the Defendant No.1 may obtain the same from the Defendant No.2. It is further the case of the Defendant No.1 that after he had obtained certified copies, he could prepare the Written statement which was filed along with the application on 22-7-2010. 3 In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts, the Trial Court considering the well settled position that for good, sufficient and exceptional reasons, the delay in filing the Written Statement could be condoned, has allowed the application filed by the Defendant No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement. It is well settled that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC are directory and not mandatory and that for good and justifiable reasons, the time period for filing the Written Statement can be extended. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Trial Court has deemed it fit to exercise discretion in favour of the Defendant No.1 by extending the time by accepting the reasons mentioned by the Defendant No.1. In my view, no exception could be taken to the impugned Order dated 22-6-2011, in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 5 However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the hearing of the suit in question is expedited. [R.M.SAVANT, J]