1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3875 OF 2010. Vitthal Namdeo Raut and others. -: VERSUS :- Gajanan Jagannath Gole Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2010. Heard Shri C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri J.B. Gandhi, learned Counsel for respondent. Respondent has filed reply today. Shri Joshi, learned counsel states that the impugned order dated 03.03.2010 passed below Exh.31 specifically notes that there are no just and sufficient reasons warranting exercise of discretion under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. and still by imposing costs of Rs. 400/- liberty has been given to respondent to file written statement. Shri Gandhi, learned counsel points out that along with application at Exh.32 seeking leave to file written 2 statement, application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C. was also filed pointing out that necessary documents were not supplied along with the plaint to the respondent, and hence, the plaint was liable to be returned/rejected under Order VI Rules 2 and 3, read with Order VI Rule 15 and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. He states that, that application has been allowed partly on 08.04.2010 by directing petitioners / plaintiffs to supply necessary documents to the defendants in the suit. According to him, there are total 8 defendants and all the defendants are not party before this Court. He states that as the documents were not supplied along with the plaint there was no question of present respondent filing any written statement earlier. The present petition has been filed on 12.07.2010. Order dated 08.04.2010 by which petitioners / plaintiffs were directed to supply copies of documents, has not been disclosed in it. It is clear that as the documents were not supplied, the trial Court could have permitted the defendants before it to file written statement even after expiry of the stipulated period under Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. The order has been suppressed from this Court and there are no reasons for the same. That order is also not challenged before this Court. 3 In the circumstances, though the impugned order dated 03.03.2010 does not contain any sufficient reasons, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. For suppression of the orders dated 08.04.2010 the petitioners before this Court are directed to pay costs of Rs. 400/- to the defendants before the trial Court. Trial Court shall accept the written statement of the defendants and proceed further in accordance with law. Writ Petition is dismissed in view of above discussion. JUDGE Rgd.