1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1380 OF 2010 1. Bhagubai Bhima Thorat Age 66 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Godhegaon, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Asarabai Pandit Sonawane, Age 55 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Kate Pimpalgaon, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. Rajendra Chandrabhan Bharhate, Age 35 yrs., through G.P.A. of Petitioner No. 1 and 2, R/o. Sade, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Petitioners. Versus 1. Narayan Hari Gunjal Age 65 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Sade, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Antavan Shiva Gunjal, Age 68 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. as above. 3. Babu Shankar Gunjal, Age 58 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. As above. 4. Dadasaheb Sukhdeo Yeole, Age 30 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, R/o. Yeola Akhada, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Respondents. Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. N.C. Garud, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2 CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. DATED : 22nd November, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. By the impugned common order dated 12.1.2010 the Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner and refused to extend the time for payment of costs and consequently not taken the written statement of the petitioners/original defendants on record. This order is subject matter of challenge in the petition. 4. Earlier, on 9.11.2009 it appears that Trial Court had set aside the "No W.S." order subject to costs of Rs. 600/-. The application for extension of time to pay costs and take written statement on record was rejected by the impugned order inasmuch as no medical certificate was filed and as the Trial Court was of the view that the petitioners were deliberately trying to prolong the matter. 5. Considering the fact that there was already an order allowing the petitioners to file written statement subject to payment of cost and that no stipulated time was prescribed in paying costs, even assuming there 3 was delay in paying costs, in the interest of justice, the delay in paying costs ought to have been condoned by the Trial Court and it ought to have taken the written statement on record. The delay was not such that it should entail an order which would have the effect of non suiting the petitioners and depriving them of opportunity of defending the suit. 6. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 12.1.2010 is required to be set aside and accordingly set aside, subject to condition that instead of cost of Rs. 600/-, the petitioners shall now pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the respondent No. 1 within a period of four weeks from today. On payment of the aforesaid costs, the application of the petitioners shall be deemed to have been allowed. 7. The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and rule is made absolute accordingly. Needless to state that ad-interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. [ A. A. SAYED ] Judge ssc/wp1380.10