1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2705 OF 2008 Shivprakash Ramkishan Malpani and others .. Petitioners. Versus Kunal Ashokrao Aher and others. ..Respondents -- Smt. Anjali Vajpai Dube, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 2nd March, 2009, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioners for taking written statement on record. 3. A suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff claiming for a declaration that the sale deed executed by their parents in favour of 2 the petitioners is null and void. In the said suit, the defendant No.4 appeared on 15th March, 2009 and the defendant No.6 on 4th April, 2008. When the matter was posted on 25th July, 2008, the petitioners sought time for preparing and filing written statement. The said application at Exhibit 97 was allowed. On the next date, the petitioners filed an application for taking the written statement on record. The same is rejected by the impugned order. Hence the present petition. 4. Shri Patil, appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the trial court has rightly rejected the application. He further submits that the conduct of the petitioners also disentitles them for an equitable relief. He further submits that since the written statement was not filed within 90 days, the application was rightly rejected. 5. Perusal of the record reveals that after the petitioners had appeared in the proceeding and application was made by them at Exhibit 97 on 25/7/2008 for grant of time to file written statement. The said application was allowed. Immediately on the next date, i.e. on 1/8/2008, they had filed an application for taking the written statement on record. No doubt that in view of Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. the written statement is required to be filed initially within a period of 30 days and if the defendant satisfies the court that for a reasonable cause he could not file it in time, the same may be filed within 90 days. The said provision has been held to be Directory in the matter of " Kailas Vs. Nankhu" reported in 2005 AIRSCW 2346, . It can 3 be seen that the learned trial court itself vide order below Exhibit 97 dated 25/7/2008 had granted time to file written statement on record and immediately on the next day, the written statement is placed on record. I find that having granted time it was not just on the part of the learned trial court to have refused to accept the written statement. In any event, the prejudice that is caused to the respondents can be compensated by way of saddling costs. 6. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (C) and (D). However, written statement of the petitioners is permitted to be taken on record subject to his depositing costs, which are quantified at Rs.3,000/-. The costs to be deposited in the trial court within a period of 4 weeks from today. On deposit of costs as aforesaid by the petitioners, the respondents would be at liberty to withdraw the same. It is made clear that on failure to deposit costs within the aforesaid period the writ petition shall automatically stand dismissed.~ [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/