1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 351 OF 2010 Laxman Pralhad Somkuwar v. N.I.T. & anr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. B.N. Mohta with Mr.Papinwar Advocate for the appellant. ..... CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 15 th OCTOBER, _2010. The appellant has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1314 of 2010 dismissing the writ petition filed against the order made by the Civil Court allowing filing of written statement that was late by two months. 2. In support of the appeal, Mr.Mohta relied on the decision in Mohammed Yusu v. Faiz Mohammad reported in (2009) 3 SCC 513 and argued that the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised jurisdiction vested in him and set aside the order made by the trial court permitting the respondent/defendant to file written statement beyond two months over and above the prescribed period of 90 days. He then argued that there 2 was no exceptional reason for late filing of written statement. 3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge so also the order dated 8.2.2010 passed by the trial court permitting filing of written statement. At the outset, we find that the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order made by the trial court allowing filing of written statement by compensating the appellant with costs of Rs.500/-. This non-interference by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified even in the light of paragraph 13 of judgment in Mohammed Yusuf, supra. That apart, we find that the defendant N.I.T. is a statutory authority and the reasons for delay of two months in filing the written statement have been given. At any rate, the Civil Court found that the suit did not progress as it was pending decision merely on preliminary issue about valuation and jurisdiction. We, therefore, find that the decision of the Supreme Court wherein there was delay of three years in filing the written statement does not apply in the instant case. There is no substance in the letters patent appeal and the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE /TA/ 3