1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7039 OF 2009 Mohan Munshiram Ahuja and others Petitioners versus Hemant Dhanaji Vidhate and others Respondents Mr.S.K.Shinde i/by Sagar Kasar for petitioners. Mr.M.M.Sathye for respondents 1 to 4. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 05th March 2010 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original defendants. The petitioners made an application at Exhibit-38 seeking permission to file written statement. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. Notice for final disposal at admission stage has been issued. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the assertions made in the application. He pointed out that the petitioners entered their appearance on 4th July 2008 and an order to proceed without written statement was passed on 4th December 2 2008. He stated that the application on which the impugned order has been passed is filed in March 2009. He, therefore, submitted that subject to payment of costs, permission to file the written statement ought to have been granted. Mr.Sathaye appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition. 3. I have considered the submissions. The learned Trial Judge has noted in the order that on 4th July 2008 the petitioners appeared in the suit through their advocate and on two or more occasions the petitioners applied for grant of time to file the written statement. The Court has noted that thereafter on three dates the petitioners or their advocate did not appear in the Court and, therefore, on 4th December 2008 the Trial Court proceeded to pass an order that the suit will proceed without written statement. The Trial Court has observed that no extraordinary reasons have been pointed out. 4. In the application at Exhibit-38, the petitioners have pointed out that for the purposes of drafting the written statement copies of documents relating to permission granted by the Charity Commissioner in the year 2001 were necessary. Moreover, old revenue record was required to be traced out and documents relating to other proceedings were required to be collected. It is pointed out that the suit was filed in April 2008 for challenging the sale deed dated 3 4th October 2001. It is pointed out in paragraph 4 of the application that due to lapse of period of seven years, all the relevant documents were not in the custody of the petitioners and it took time to collect the documents. Considering what is stated in the application and in view of the facts of the case, it is obvious that extraordinary circumstances were set out in the application as to why the written statement could not be filed earlier. The petitioners entered appearance on service of notice on 4th July 2008 and present application was filed on 7th March 2009. Moreover, it appears that the written statement was tendered along with the said application. Therefore, this was a case where application made by the petitioners ought to have been allowed subject to payment of costs. 5. The petitioners have already deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in this Court in terms of order dated 10th September 2009. This amount will be treated as costs of the application made in the Trial Court as well as this petition. 6. Hence, I pass following order :- A) The impugned order is quashed and set aside and application at Exhibit-38 is allowed; 4 B) First to third respondents who are original plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited by petitioners in this Court; C) The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)