IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5311/2008 M/s Om Sahil Enterprises Petitioners Vs. Ambit Corporate Finance Pvt.Ltd. Respondents Mr.V.B.Naik i/b M/s Paras Kuhad & Asso.for petitioners Mr.Janak Dwarkadas Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.Pravin Samdani,Sr.Counsel a/wMr.Kunal Vajani,Advocate a/w Mr.Pervez Bapuna advocate i/b M/s Wadia Ghandi & Co.for therespondent Coram : Anoop V.Mohta,J. Date : 16th October,2008. P.C. 1] The petitioner has challenged the order of condoning the delay of three months and 5 days in filing the written statement by the sole defendant in a suit for eviction based upon leave and licence. The grant of such application considering the nature of the dispute and basically when it involves the possession of the parties I see there is no reason to interfere with the discretion so exercised, after considering the rivalcontentions as raised. 2] It is settled that to allow the party to file written statement on record beyond the period needs to be considered 2 on the foundation of exceptional circumstances.The fact that it is a suit for eviction ,the person opposing such suit needs to be given full opportunity to contest the litigation of such nature . The learned Judge is ,therefore, right in granting this opportunity by observing in para 9 of the impugned order.The relevant portion of para 9 reads as follows. ''It is well settled provision of law that,the object of statute is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same.While justice delayed may amount to justice denied,justice hurried may in some case amount to justice buried. It is always better to give an opportunity to both the sides to prove their case on merits.If the application is allowed the defendant would get an opportunity to defend his case on merits whereas if,the application is rejected he will suffer irreparable loss and it would amount to complications and multiplicity in the suit.Therefore,in my opinion,if the application is allowed it would not cause prejudice to the other side.'' 3] The reason for not filing written statement within prescribed period has always foundation of background of particular litigation.The respondent/original defendant is a Company .Admittedly various interlocutory applications were pending including the application for amendment to the plaint.The same was disposed of some time in October,2007. 3 The other applications were disposed of lastly on 1.7.2008. If the note is taken of these decisions including the pendency of these applications , I see there is no reason to interfere with the order of granting such application in the interest of justice. 4] The earliest written statement and defence raised by the parties is always essential for proper adjudication of the matter to end the litigation as early as possible. Therefore, granting permission to file such written statement is essential to dispose of such litigation which otherwise in a given case for want of written statement and/or opportunity itself would be a cause to delay the main proceeding itself. 5] Taking all this in to account I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of granting such application of allowing to file written statement. The petition is dismissed accordingly. 6] The learned counsel for the petitioner /plaintiff seeks continuation of interim order granted by this Court for four weeks.As the request is on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner it is granted for four weeks. (Anoop V.Mohta,J.)