*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9990/2009 Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd.. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Alok Bagla, Advocate i/b Bagla Dandekar & Company, for the Petitioner. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 02nd December, 2009. PC:- 1 The present Petitioner is the original Plaintiff who has challenged an action on the part of Respondent Corporation in blacklisting the present Petitioner who is contractor from participating in the contracts of the Corporation. In the said suit, summons came to be served on the Corporation on 02.09.2008, however, the Corporation filed the Written Statement beyond the permitted period i.e. on 23.04.2009. After lapse of about four months, the present Petitioner took out the Notice of Motion with a view to set aside the said order where under the Written Statement was accepted. The grievance is that the Written Statement was accepted behind back of the Petitioner and without there being any application for condonation of delay. 2 True it is. Having regard to the provisions of the Order-8 Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Defendant ought to have moved an application for condonation of delay and the Court on *2* being satisfied of existence of sufficient cause, could have permitted the filing of Written Statement after expiry of period of 90 days. Be that as it may, the Written Statement was accepted on 23.04.2009 and subsequently, the Petitioner took out the Notice of Motion for quashing of the said order. The effect of allowing the Notice of Motion would have been rejection of the Written Statement filed by the Defendant/ Corporation and an exparte decree. The Trial Court being of the view that having regard to nature of the controversy, it would be in furtherance of cause of justice to have a decision after contest in the matter and hence, taking a pragmatic view of the matter, choose not to allow the Notice of Motion. 3 Having regard to the nature of controversy, there cannot be an iota of doubt that public interest is also involved as the present Petitioner is seeking quashing of an action on the part of Corporation in blacklisting him. Taking overall view of the matter, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice to resolve the controversy after affording an opportunity to both the sides to put forth their case. Grave injustice would result if the Written Statement is rejected solely on the ground of delay when the same is already accepted and acted upon. Interfering in the impugned order in the present Writ Petition, assuming that the same suffers from some illegality, would result in substituting a right order by a wrong order. In that view of the matter, I decline to entertain in the present Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)