1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2416 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. ------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.R.A.Malandkar for the petitioners. Mr.Anuj Narula with Mr.Dhaval Mehta i/b.Divya Shah & Co. for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 27.02.2009 : 27.02.2009 : 27.02.2009 P.C. The petitioner/corporation has challenged the impugned order/action dated 19.1.2009 as the learned trial Court refused to take on record the affidavit in reply dated 14.1.2009 as inspite of earlier opportunity, they did not file the same and now sought to place on record after the arguments were closed. The fact remains that the matter is at interlocutory stage. As rightly pointed out, the 2 petitioner/corporation should have acted fairly, but they themselves are not following and responding to the orders already passed. Now therefore they just cannot be permitted to file such affidavits. However, considering the fact that the issue is pertaining to the acquisition and the public body is involved, I am inclined to permit the petitioner/corporation file reply on record. It is needless to mention that an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff in all respects and if necessary by rehearing the matter. In the result, the impugned order is accordingly quashed to that extent. However, this is subject to paying costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the plaintiff within two weeks as a condition precedent. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) V. MOHTA,J.) V. MOHTA,J.)