-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.629 of 2008 Abdul Hamid Dawood Mohamed Pipewala ..Petitioner vs. Abdul Sattar Dawood Mohamed Pipewala ..Respondent Shri A.K.Goel for petitioner. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 31st January, 2008 31st January, 2008 31st January, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This writ petition was placed today for admission and the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner informs that notice of today’s hearing has been served on the other side. He has filed the affidavit proving service. In such circumstances, the petition is heard and disposed of. 2. None appears for the respondents. 3. The respondent had not opposed the request of the petitioner/original defendant in the Trial Court. The Trial Court earlier passed an order on Chamber Summons No.472 of 2007 in suit no.632 of 2007 on 11th December, 2007 and -2- allowed the Chamber Summons. It condoned the delay in filing the written statement and the written statement was allowed to be filed by the defendant. The order on that chamber summons was passed on 11th December, 2007 and only one day’s time was granted to file the written statement. 4. When the matter was placed on the very next day, naturally, the written statement was not ready and the learned Judge ignoring his earlier order has proceeded to deny opportunity to the petitioner to defend the suit. He has rejected the application made by the petitioner/defendant for adjournment. He ordered that suit will proceed without written statement. The reasons are separately recorded by him. The reasons are that when the Chamber Summons was made absolute and the petitioner was allowed to file the written statement, the delay was condoned because 90 days period was not over by that time. The writ of summons was served on 8th March, 1997. Now 90 days are over. No special or extra ordinary reasons are made out to condone the delay and, therefore, even if the respondent/plaintiff had no objection, still, the prayer or request for adjournment to file -3- the written statement is rejected. 5. There is hardly any justification for departing from the earlier order. If the matter was kept on the very next day and all that the petitioner was requesting was reasonable time to file the written statement, then, interest of justice warranted that the request is granted. All the more, when delay was condoned just a day prior to the application, in such circumstances, the order dated 12th December, 2007 is quashed and set aside. In pursuance of the earlier order passed on the Chamber Summons the written statement shall now be accepted provided the same is filed within a period of 10 days from today. Petition is accordingly allowed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)