1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1498 OF 2010 Bank of Baroda .. Petitioner versus Harakhchand N. Shah & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.R.Bamne i/by M/s.A.R.Bamne & Co for the petitioner. Mr.Ketan Chotani i/by Mr.Sanjay Patankar for respondent Nos.1 to 8. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 3rd March 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 8 who are the original plaintiffs. 2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in the suit filed by the 1st to 8th respondents. Writ of summons was served to the petitioner on 22nd September 2009. An application was made on 10th December 2009 by the petitioner seeking permission to file the written statement. The application made by the petitioner records that written statement duly affirmed was tendered alongwith the said application. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the learned trial Judge. 3. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I find that the approach of the learned trial Judge is very strange. The written 2 statement was tendered by the petitioner alongwith an application admittedly within a period of 90 days from the date of service of summons to the petitioner. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st to 8th respondents had submitted to the orders of the Court when the application was taken up for hearing. 4. In the impugned order, the learned Judge has recorded that none appeared for the petitioner-1st defendant. The learned Judge observed that no details have been given in the application as to when writ of summons was served to the petitioner and that the delay in tendering the written statement is not explained. The learned Judge observed that even the written statement was not annexed to the application. 5. In the first paragraph of the application, the petitioner has set out the date on which writ of summons was served. The written statement was tendered alongwith the said application. Even the roznama reflects that the written statement was in fact tendered alongwith the said application well within 90 days from the date on which writ of summons was served. It appears that the learned trial Judge has completely glossed over proviso to Rule 1, Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the fact that the written statement was tendered within 90 days from the date of service of summons. The impugned order shows non-application of mind. The petitioner bank has been unnecessarily driven to this Court. 3 6. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 27th January 2010 is quashed and set aside. The written statement filed by the petitioner is ordered to be taken on record. Writ petition is allowed accordingly . (b) It is obvious that the impugned order is set aside only in so far as the petitioner bank is concerned. (A.S.OKA,J)