1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2009 Rasik U. Pitle & Ors. ...Applicants. v. Smt. Hema Dave & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.B.M.Vakil, adv. for the Applicant. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 6TH October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, who are the original plaintiffs. Respondents are the original defendants in Short Cause Suit No.3168 of 2006. Suit was filed by the plaintiffs restraining the defendants, who are the tenants from causing any obstruction in the repairs to be carried in the building by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had also taken out notice of motion for the interim relief. Writ of summons and notice of motion both were served on the defendants. they appeared and some of them contested the notice of motion. However, they did not file any written statement. Defendants then took out notice of motion, Ex.21 seeking leave to file written statement on behalf of the defendants. Notice of motion was opposed by the 2 plaintiffs on the ground that there was inordinate delay of two years and half a month in taking out notice of motion and in filing written statement. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court allowed the notice of motion and the defendants were allowed to file written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/-. Being not satisfied with that order, plaintiffs have challenged that order. 2 Affidavit of defendant no.4 Nitin Dalal was filed in support of the contention that the defendants did not understand difference between the notice of motion and writ of summons and they had informed their advocate only about the service of notice of motion and it was being contested. As they had not informed about the service of writ of summons, their advocate had not prepared written statement on his own. Only a week before, on inspection of the record, they had come to know that writ of summons was also served and the written statement was not filed. 3 The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/revision applicants admits that writ of summons, which were served on the defendants was in the prescribed form for short cause suit. The form no.3 prescribed by the Bombay City Civil Court Rules for short cause suit only requires appearance of the parties for disposal of the suit. It does 3 not require the defendant to file written statement. The form no.4 is prescribed for summons in long cause suit where the defendant is required to file a written statement of the defence. In view of the difference in two forms, it is clear that when the summons is served in the form no.3 prescribed for short cause suit, the defendant is not required to file written statement unless the Court specifically directs for that purpose later on. Similar difference is to be found in process form no.1 prescribed in summons for disposal of the suit and form no. 2 about summons for settlement of issues in C.P.C. When the summons for settlement of issues is served, defendant is required to file written statement within the prescribed period but when the summons is issued only for disposal of the suit, it does not call upon the defendant to file written statement. In view of this, there is possibility that parties were confused and they did not understand the difference between the summons and could not make out difference between notice of motion and writ of summons. In such circumstances, I find that it was in the interest of justice to allow defendants to file written statement. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 4 4 Therefore, revision application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)