1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.2252 of 2008 The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai Petitioner Vs. Maruti Vaijnath Rasale Respondent Ms.Nisha Dabhade i/b. Mr.S.H. Ujainwalla and Mr. R.A. Malandkar for petitioner. Mr.S.K.Dubey for respondent. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 3, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. . Rule. Respondent waives service. . With the consent of the parties the petition is taken up for hearing forthwith as it challenges an order rejecting application below Exhibit 14. . In L.C. Suit No.973 of 2005 in which the 2 petitioner is impleaded as defendant, the trial Court passed an order on 1/8/2006 to proceed with the Suit without the Written Statement of the Corporation and, therefore, it filed an application at Exhibit 14 praying for setting aside the said order and taking on record the Written Statement. The learned counsel for the plaintiff had consented for taking the Written Statement on record and despite that the trial Court was not satisfied by the reasons given by the Corporation in not filing the Written Statement in time and the trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab Vs. Kumar & ors. [(2006) 1 SCC 46] [(2006) 1 SCC 46] [(2006) 1 SCC 46]. . Though the impugned order cannot be faulted with, the Corporation being a local body, public purpose would be better served if it is allowed, by imposing cost, to bring on record its Written Statement so that the suit filed by the respondent is decided on merits. The learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if the costs are imposed so that the Written Statement is taken on record. . Hence the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application at 3 Exhibit 14 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- and the said amount is paid to the plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today. . Rule is made absolute accordingly. (B.H.MARL