1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2258 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2237 OF 2004 Sulochana Kirtikumar Shah ....Plaintiff Versus Narendra Maganlal Shah & Ors. ....Defendants Ms.Astha Tahmankar i/b. Mr. I. V. Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff. Ms. Kajle @ Kalpesh Nensi i/b. Mr. Kailash R. Gunjal, Advocate for Defendant Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 12th MARCH, 2010. P.C. : Heard learned Counsel for the Defendants and Plaintiff. 2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff seeks two weeks' adjournment to file reply. Adjournment is refused, as copy of the notice of motion is served upon the Plaintiff on 3rd July, 2009 and till today, affidavit in reply is not filed. 2. The notice of motion is taken out by Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 for taking their written statement on record by condoning delay of 473 days. The affidavit in support to the notice of motion reveals that the writ of summons alongwith true 2 copy of the plaint was served upon Defendant No.1 on/or about December, 2007 and thereafter, written statement was prepared. However, due to personal difficulty, business commitments and oversight, the said written statement could not be lodged in the Office of the High Court and the same remained in the custody of Defendant No.1. Meanwhile, the Defendants lost track of the matter. It is further submitted that only in the month of January, 2009, it was revealed that the written statement has not been filed in the above suit. The above reasons are not controverted by the Plaintiff by filing reply. I find that the Defendants have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay occurred in filing the written statement. The notice of motion is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) & (c). Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)