rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9487 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9487 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9487 OF 2007 Hygieno Razario & Ors. .. Petitioners. V/s. Roz-A-Rio C.H.S.Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Bipin Joshi for Petitioners. Mr.Rafuq V. i/b. M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for Respondents. CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The Trial Court by detailed order has dismissed the Notice of Motion No.3560 of 2007 and thus the relief claimed by the Petitioner to recall the earlier order and take the Written Statement on record has been rejected. 2. It is undisputed before me that the suit is filed in the year 2003. Further, it is undisputed that the parties contested interlocutory proceedings. There was Notice of Motion which was taken out in the year 2003 and was decided on 3rd August, 2007. At the hearing 2 of the Notice of Motion, a detailed affidavit has been filed dealing with the plaint allegations. Therefore, after the Motion was disposed of, the Petitioner requested that the Written Statement be allowed to be tendered. The Written Statement was already prepared, copy of the same was already forwarded to the Original Plaintiff and all that remained was to tender the same in the Trial Court. 3. It appears that at that stage objection was raised that in the light of Amended Civil Procedure Code, the Written Statement cannot be taken on record, unless exceptional circumstances are pointed out. There is nothing exceptional according to the Plaintiffs and that is how the learned Judge has dealt with the matter. He has refused to condone the delay and thus the Written Statement has not been filed. 4. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for parties. In my view, this is not a case where the learned Judge should have refused to accept the written statement on file when the matter was heavily contested by both sides at the interlocutory stage, the version of the Petitioners with regard to the merits of the controversy is already on record. All that remained to 3 be done is that a Written Statement had to be tendered and that has not been done. It should have been permitted to be tendered, considering the fact that it merely reiterates the version already on record. The motion was disposed off after four years. It appears that the learned Judge disallowed the request since the matter was time bound and expedited. In the peculiar facts of this case by imposing costs and compensating the Original Plaintiff, the Written Statement could have been taken on record. Thus, precious judicial time would have been saved. 5. After the matter was heard for some time, it is agreed between parties that upon the Petitioners paying the costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) within a period of one week from today, the Written Statement shall be taken on record and matter be proceeded in accordance with law. In case of default, the impugned order stands and the Writ Petition be dismissed without further reference to the court. 6. Since it is time bound suit and that fact has influenced the learned Judge to some extent, in the peculiar facts of this case, it is directed that the time for disposing of the suit which expires on 18th March, 2008, is extended to 10th June, 2008. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)