:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2097 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.2097 OF 2007 OF MOTION NO.2097 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.2053 OF 1991 NO.2053 OF 1991 NO.2053 OF 1991 The Hindusthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. .. .. ..plaintiffs V/s M/s Fatechand Magangopal ..Defendants Ms Aradhana Bhansali with Mr. Parag Patil i/b M/s Hariani & Co. for the Plaintiff Mr. N.S. Fadia for the Defendants CORAM ; A.A.SAYED, J. DATE : 23RD JANUARY, 2009 P.C. 1. This motion has been taken out by the defendants for taking written statement of the defendants on record in the suit. The suit was filed in the year 1991. The notice of motion is taken out in the year 2007. The suit was initially filed as a summary suit. Thereafter the defendants were granted conditional leave to defend the suit on the defendants’ depositing the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in the Court. The defendants were directed to file written statement within 12 weeks. 2. The learned Counsel for the defendant has invited my attention to para 4 of the affidavit in :2: support of the motion, wherein it is stated that the partnership firm of the defendants had undergone number of changes as some of the partners had expired and some of them had retired. It is further stated therein that there were differences and disputes amongst the partners and none of the partners were interested in looking after the business. It is further stated that due to the differences and disputes amongst the partners the business of the defendants came to a standstill and therefore no track was kept of the present proceedings. It is also stated that the senior partner Mr.R.G. Morarka who is presently 90 years old and bedridden was not keeping well. It is further averred that when Mr. R.G. Morarka inquired from Mr. Mahavir Morarka the deponent of this affidavit in support of the motion and partner of the defendants about the position of the aforesaid matter, sometime in May, 2007, he made inquiries from the Advocate, when he came to know that the written statement has remained to be filed. The learned Counsel for the defendants submits that the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been deposited in this Court in pursuance of the orders of this Court and it was only due to inadvertence and the :3: circumstances mentioned above that the written statement could not be filed. 3. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand submits that no sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay in filing the written statement. It is further argued that there is delay of more than 13-1/2 years in filing written statement and therefore, this court should not show any indulgence in the matter. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is significant to note that no reply has been filed by the plaintiffs to controvert the facts stated in the affidavit in support. It is further to be noted that even though the suit is pending since 1991 no efforts have been made by the plaintiffs for keeping the suit for exparte decree when there was no written statement on record. Moreover the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- in pursuance to the order of this Court has already been deposited by the defendants.Taking an overall view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the motion, however subject to costs. Hence, I pass the following order:- :4: 5. Notice of motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) by condoning delay and subject to costs to Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The written statement to be filed within a period of three weeks from today. Notice of motion is disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)