:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8197 OF 2007 Shri Mahadev Gopal Yadav ...Petitioners Versus Shrinarayan Gopal Yadav & Ors. ....Respondents ------- Mr.S.C.Prabhu i/by. N.V.Bandiwadekar Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. Sameer Tendulkar, Adv. for respondent no.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 16TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioner is one of the Defendant in a Suit filed by Respondent no.1 being Reg.Civil Suit No. 103 of 2006 in the court of learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Dhapoli. 2. It appears that the suit summons was served on the Defendant no.1 in October, 2006. The petitioner engaged an Advocate who filed his Vakalatnama and applied for time to file Written Statement. The case of the petitioner is that, the matter was adjourned to 20.11.2006. The petitioner furnished all the :2: :2: :2: information and documents to the Advocate to enable him to file the Written Statement. However, despite his assurance he did not take steps and once again applied for time to file Written Statement. Time was granted till 20.11.2006 as last chance, but, no W.S. being filed, the Court directed that the matter will proceed without W.S. The petitioner was following up the matter, but, he approached his advocate in June, 2007. The Advocate told him that the Written Statement has not been filed and therefore the Court has passed the order. Immediately thereupon, the petitioner engaged another Advocate and he filed his Vakalatnama after discharge of the earlier Advocate. The petitioner took immediate steps and applied for recalling of the order of ‘No W.S.’ Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The Learned Judge has rejected the request for recalling the order, by only one line order. According, to the Learned Judge, there is no justifiable reason and hence the Application deserves to be rejected. 4. It is contended before me, that in the :3: :3: :3: Application, the Petitioner has set out the reasons, why he prays for recalling the order of ‘No W.S.’. It is not as if the petitioner is blaming the Advocate, inasmuch as, the Advocate himself accepted the mistake and pointed out that the Written Statement could not be filed because of his other commitments. The petitioner changed that Advocate and in such circumstances applied for recalling the order. In my view, the reasons are indeed assigned. The Learned Judge should have dealt with them. That apart, instead of remitting the matter to the Trial Court, in the peculiar facts of this case, when the delay is of eight and half months and the Suit is of 2006, interest of justice would be subserved if the petitioner’s Written Statement is directed to be accepted, provided the same is filed within a period of 15 days accompanied by payment of costs quantified at Rs.1,000/-. If costs are tendered in the Trial Court and proof is produced, the Written Statement of the petitioner to be accepted and taken on record and thereafter the Suit shall proceed. In default, the impugned order stands confirmed and the Writ Petition stands dismissed without any further reference to court. Petition disposed off. :4: :4: :4: *******