1 WP 1069.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1069 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. N.C.Garud, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V.Mundhe,Advocate for the Resp.No. 1. Mr. N.V.Gaware,Advocate for the Resp.No. 2. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the original defendant no. 1, who had filed counter claim on 23/2/2009. The plaintiff did not file the Written Statement to the counter claim immediately and on 7/4/2010, the application of the plaintiff seeking adjournment to file written Statement to the counter claim was rejected. Thereafter, the plaintiff on 21/4/2010 filed an application for setting aside the said order and allowing the plaintiff to file the Written Statement to the counter claim. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 2 WP 1069.2011 2. Mr. Garud, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the Written Statement to the counter claim. Earlier, on 7/4/2010, the application was rejected and on the same ground again the application is filed on 21/4/2010. The trial court could not have dealt with the application in such a casual manner. According to the learned counsel, no explanation is given for such delay in filing written statement to the counter claim. The learned trial court could not have allowed the said application. 3. The earlier order on 7/4/2010 was passed on an application seeking adjournment to file written statement to the counter claim. The same was rejected. Along with the said application, no written statement was filed. Thereafter, on 21/4/2010, the plaintiff filed written statement to the counter claim and made a request to take the said written statement on record. 4. Though there is delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing the written statement to the counter claim, still in view of the fact that the written statement is already filed on record and in view of the fact that both the parties are claiming recovery against each other, it would be in the 3 WP 1069.2011 fitness of things to grant opportunity to the plaintiff in filing the Written Statement to the counter claim and contest the matter on merits. 5. The discretion that has been exercised by the trial court is reasonable and not arbitrary one. The said discretion need not to be interfered in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of that, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 1069.2011