1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2496 OF 2009 Eknath Yashwant Aher ..Petitioner V/s Shri.S.M. Khatod & Sons and another. ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------ Mr.S.T. Shelke, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.M.N. Nawandhar, Advocate for respondent no.1. ------------------------------------------------------ (CORAM : R.M.BORDE,J.) DATE : 05th December, 2009. PER COURT : 1. The order passed by the Trial Court accepting the written statement presented by the original defendant is the subject matter of challenge in this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner presented the Regular Civil Suit No. 255/2005 seeking declaration that he has become the owner of the disputed property by adverse possession, and for seeking directions to the revenue authorities to record mutation entry in his favour. The defendant is partnership firm through the General Power of Attorney. Inspite of service of summons, the written 2 statement was not presented. Ultimately, on 15.04.2008, an application came to be presented for setting aside “no written statement order” and for accepting the written statement. The Trial Court without recording any reason has allowed the application subject to costs of Rs.100/-. It is urged by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is unreasoned and does not comply with the mandatory provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. I perused the application as well as the order. It is stated in the application that the notice was served on the General Power of Attorney however, as the General Power of Attorney was not keeping good health, therefore, he could not present the written statement. The defendant as such, could not make arrangement to present the written statement within prescribed period. After the defendants made enquiries, they were informed that the suit is placed for exparte hearing. It is also stated in their application that the suit relates to immovable property and issues both of fact and law are required 3 to be determined. Thus, considering the contentions raised in the application, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was justified in accepting written statement. The issue involved in the suit relates to the determination of rights in the immovable property, and plaintiff-petitioner herein claims perfection of his title in relation to joint property on the basis of her continuous long standing possession. The contentions raised about the adverse possession of the property are required to be determined as full length trial and after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. Considering these facts, I am of the opinion that in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for. The Petition stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE GAS/wp2496.09