( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1934 OF 2010 Sanjay s/o Prabhakar Belapurkar PETITIONER VERSUS Madhav s/o Vinayak Belapurkar & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. A.Z. Gandhi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. L.V. Sangit, advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 10th August, 2010] PER COURT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 20th January, 2010, rendered on his application (Exh-29) in the suit (R.C.S. No. 418/2009. By the impugned order, the learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Sangamner rejected the application seeking leave to file the written statement. 2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it is manifestly clear that the impugned order is arbitrarily rendered without considering the ( 2 ) legal aspect of the matter. The petitioner is original defendant No. 4 and was to appear before the trial Court on 1st January, 2010. He did not appear and as such, on the same day, the trial Court set him exparte. On 20th January, 2010, he appeared and submitted the application (Exh-29). He submitted that he was unable to attend due to fever and the exparte order may be set aside. He filed an affidavit alongwith the application. He further contended that he was ready to furnish the medical certificate on the next date. Instead of giving him an opportunity to produce the medical certificate and without considering the fact that the application was filed within 20 days after the first date of appearance, the learned Joint Civil Judge hastily rejected the application. 3. The procedural cobwebs are not meant for the purpose of aborting the legal rights of the parties. The petitioner did not commit any inordinate delay in filing of the application. His application was supported by the affidavit. He could be granted due opportunity to produce the medical certificate if the cause shown by him was not acceptable to the learned Joint Civil Judge. The learned Joint Civil Judge went to the extent of saying that the application was not ( 3 ) filed bonafidely. It is difficult to appreciate such comments of the learned Joint Civil Judge, particularly, when the application was filed within 20 days of the first order and there was no reason for the petitioner to commit the delay as his valuable right was likely to be lost due to such kind of act. Needless to say, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is granted leave to file the written statement within two (2) weeks hereafter. Ad- interim relief stands vacated. The petition is accordingly disposed of. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp1934-10