1 wp 6904.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6904 OF 2011 Vishnu S/o Magan Somwanshi, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Motegaon, Tq. Renapur, District Latur. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Ashruba S/o Vishnu Somwanshi, Age : 19 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Tatborgaon, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Sou. Vimal W/o Vishnu Somwanshi, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Tatborgaon, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 3. Balasaheb S/o Magan Somwanshi, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Motegaon, Tq. Renapur, District Latur. 4. Sou. Meena W/o Hanmant Bhise, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Pimpri (Amba), Post Yeli, Tq. & Dist. Latur. 2 wp 6904.11 5. Sou. Jaishree W/o Shrimant Sonwane, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Shera, Post Darji Borgaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. .. Respondents (The Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are deleted vide Court dt. 12.09.2011) Shri D. G. Chewale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Bhapkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6913 OF 2011 Sou. Jaishree W/o Shrimant Sonwane, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Shera, Post Darji Borgaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Ashruba S/o Vishnu Somwanshi, Age : 19 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Tatborgaon, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Sou. Vimal W/o Vishnu Somwanshi, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Tatborgaon, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 3. Balasaheb S/o Magan Somwanshi, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Agril., 3 wp 6904.11 R/o Motegaon, Tq. Renapur, District Latur. 4. Vishnu S/o Magan Somwanshi, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Motegaon, Tq. Renapur, District Latur. 5. Sou. Meena W/o Hanmant Bhise, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Pimpri (Amba), Post Yeli, Tq. & Dist. Latur. .. Respondents (The Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are deleted vide Court dt. 12.09.2011) Shri D. G. Chewale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. B. Bhapkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for partition and separate possession. The suit summons were served on the petitioners on 4 wp 6904.11 18.02.2011. The petitioners filed application seeking time to file written statement. The same was granted. On 06.06.2011 the petitioners had filed another application seeking time to file the written statement. The same came to be rejected. Thereafter, on 13.07.2011, the petitioners filed an application for setting aside the no written statement order and accepting the written statement. The said applications are rejected by the Trial Court. Aggrieved thereby present writ petitions are filed. 3. Heard, Shri Chewale, the learned counsel for petitioners and Shri Bhapkar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The learned counsel submits that he is instructed to appear for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Writ Petition No. 6904/2011 also. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 strenuously opposes the petition and contends that no sufficient cause was stated for not filing the written statement. Earlier the ground which was put forth was also incorrect and false. The Trial Court has properly rejected the said application. The learned counsel further contends that as per Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the written statement has to be filed within 30 days. In the present case, the written statement was sought to be filed after 125 days. 5 wp 6904.11 4. The provisions of order 8 Rule 1 are directory in nature. The suit is a substantive suit for partition and separate possession where each and every party is in a position of plaintiff. The rights of the parties in an immovable property are subject matter of dispute. In such case, it is always desirable to decide the matter on merits. 5. In view of above, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to petitioners to file written statement and contest the matter on merits. At the same time the petitioners also deserve to be mulct with cost. In the result I pass the following order. O R D E R A. The writ petitions are allowed. B. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B" on condition that the petitioners pay cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) in each writ petition to the plaintiffs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Dec. 11