IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 463 OF 2008 M/S. JOG SDOFTWARE SOLUTIONS LTD. ...PETITIONER. VS. SMT. MANISHA ATUL BORA ...RESPONDENT. MR. NITIN APTE AND MRS. VEENA RAHIRKAR FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. R.N.SANGHVI FOR THE RESPONDENT. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : April 24, 2008. : April 24, 2008. : April 24, 2008. P.C. 1 This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.9.2007 passed by the joint Civil Judge, S.D., Pune whereby the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the no written statement order, came to be rejected. 2 The petitioner is a public limited Company and had appointed the respondent as their employee on contractual basis. The suit is filed by the respondent for her salary dues amounting to Rs. 1,12,000/- alongwith interest thereon. The suit was filed by the Respondent on 27th January, 2004. As the petitioner company left the business premises, the summons could not be served, though the same was re-issued. The respondent, therefore, made an application, under Order 5 Rule 20 of the C.P.C. for substituted service and consequently by way of publication which was permitted by the Trial Court, the summons was published in news paper, namely, "Prabhat" on 7.12. 2007and the date of appearance in Court, for the petitioner was mentioned in the publication as 14.1.2007. The Order of no written statement was passed sometime on 12.4.2007. 3. The application by the petitioner to set aside this order came to be filed on 3.8.2007. Pertinently, in this application, except mentioning " this defendant is filing their written statement today on record immediately after appearing in the matter", there is nothing further in the application explaining the delay. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not aware of the publication of the notice and that the financial condition of the petitioner company is very poor and the petitioner company has left is business premises. In view thereof the petitioner could not pursue the matter and that in the interest of justice the no written statement order was required to be set aside. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has been negligent and that the respondent is not being paid legitimate dues and that she was even made to spend for publication of the summons. It is submitted that the application filed by the petitioner does not even have a prayer for condonation of delay and in the circumstances, the petition needs to be dismissed and the order of the Trial Court has been rightly passed. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the impugned order and the material on record. In my view considering the fact that the petitioner could not pursue the matter because of their poor financial condition and because of their leaving the business premises, though there is considerable delay in filing the application, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to them to defend the suit subject only to heavy costs. I therefore set aside the order of the Trial Court subject, however, to the condition that the petitioner shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twentyfive thousand only) towards costs, within two months from the date of this order. In the event, the amount is not paid as directed within two months, the petition will stand dismissed and the suit will proceed without written statement. 6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. ..... [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]