1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6468 OF 2009 Babu Baban Sakhare & Ors. ...Petitioners vs. Dr.Subhash Nathmal Pallod ...Respondent Mr.Neel M. Punghiya for the petitioners Mr.Vaibhav Patankar for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. After arguing the petition for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though there were valid grounds on which permission could have been granted to the petitioner to file the written statement, the said grounds have not been specifically incorporated in application at Exhibit-30. He seeks permission to withdraw the application at Exhibit-30 with liberty to file a fresh application containing the proper details and factual grounds. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the said prayer. 2 Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 has been held to be directory in nature. There is absolutely no explanation for delay in filing 2 the written statement in the application at Exhibit 30. The said application made by the Advocate for the petitioners is very cryptic which runs into only two lines. The petitioners deserve to be granted an opportunity to file a fresh application. It is obvious that if such application is filed, the respondent will be entitled to oppose the same on all permissible grounds. 3 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 16 th February 2009 is quashed and set aside and the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the application at Exhibit-30 with liberty to file a fresh application for the same relief. ii)It is made clear that the impugned order is set aside not on merits but on the ground that the petitioners desire to file a fresh application. iii)All contentions on merits of the application which may be filed by the petitioners are kept open. All defences of the respondent are kept open. JUDGE