1 wp1171.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1171 OF 2011 Bharat Vishnu Rade, Age: 36 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Ring Road, Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Gopal Khushal Kolhe, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Asoda, Taluka and District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. G.S. Rane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.K. Thote, Advocate holding for Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent sole. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. The point which is agitated in this writ 2 wp1171.11 petition is that, in a suit filed by the petitioner herein, sole defendant was allowed to file written statement after two years from issuance of the summons by the trial Court. It is the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that, impugned order suffers from non assigning of the reasons. No reasons are assigned by the Judge while setting aside "No W.S. order." 2. The Counsel for the respondent would submit that, since the written statement is already taken on record and the costs amount is also deposited, this Court may not interfere in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 3. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent, I am of the considered view that, the order impugned in this writ petition has not mentioned any reason why "No W.S. order" is required to be set aside. The impugned order reads as " Heard. No W.S. Order is set aside on costs of Rs.100/-." 3 wp1171.11 Therefore, by single sentence, "No W.S. Order" is set aside by the trial Court. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. and others, reported in A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 1574, while considering the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure taken a view that in case of extension of time for filing written statement, the Court should record reasons for such extension of time. The Supreme Court has observed in para-7 of the said judgment relying upon the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kailas vs. Nanhku and others reported in 2005 (4) S.C.C. 480 at least brief reasons are required to be recorded while extending time for filing written statement. 5. Admittedly, in the present case, the impugned order suffers from non assigning reasons while setting aside "No W.S. order." In that view of the matter, impugned order is set aside. 4 wp1171.11 The application of the respondent at Exhibit-30 is restored to its original file. The trial Court after hearing both the sides to decide the said application on merits, however, record the reasons in support of the order which will be passed on the said application. 6. Since the matter is pending for considerable period, the trial Court will decide the said application within one month from date of the receipt of this order. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of. Rule made absolute as indicated above. sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/NOV11