IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7223/2007 Dilip Kashinath Soundane and ors. Petitioners Vs. Bhaginath Kashinath Soundane and ors. Respondents Mr.Rohan Sonawane h/f Shri.Mahendra Sandhayanshiv for the petitioners Shri.SagarKalar for the respondents Coram : A.A.Sayed,J. Date : 25th June,2008 P.C. 1] By the impugned order the defendant's application for taking written statement on record is rejected. It appears that there were two applications made ,one is dated 19-12-2005 and the other is dated 3-1-2006. The reason for the delay as mentioned in the Application dated 3-1-2006 appears to have not been considered by the trial court in the impugned order. Moreover the written statement though apparently ready has not been annexed to the Application. 2 2] The learned counsel for the respondent states that the trial has already commenced and the examination in chief by way of affidavit has already been filed before the Trial Court and the impugned order has been rightly passed by the Trial Court. 3] In my view interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is granted liberty to file fresh comprehensive application with necessary reasons stated therein as to why there was delay in filing written statement and also annexing therewith the written statement . The trial court to decide this application without being influenced by the impugned order . It appears that the cross examination is not started . 4] The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with liberty as aforestated. Judge.