IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.878 OF 2008 Shri Dattatraya Kondiba Chakankar & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Ms.Malan Baban Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Ms.Gunjan Shah for Petitioners. Ms.Anjali S.Uthale for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 24, 2009. MARCH 24, 2009. MARCH 24, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Ms.Uthale waives notice for Respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of : 2 : the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 8th October 2007 passed by the IInd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune below Exhibit 58 in Regular Civil Suit No.1249/2005. By this order, the Trial Court rejected the Application preferred by Defendants 1 and 2 praying for taking their written statement on record and to recall the order dated 18th March 2006 of no written statement. The Court below has rightly taken the view that no sufficient cause, much less, exceptional circumstance has been established by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to show indulgence to allow them to file written statement belatedly. However, before this Court, the argument of the Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 is that the Petitioners would be more than content, if they are allowed to adopt the written statement of Defendants 3 to 5 which is already filed on record in time. According to the Petitioners, this request was made before the Trial Court but has not been adverted to at all though specifically stated in the formal application filed (Exhibit 58). 5. Be that as it may, the question is: if : 3 : this course suggested by the Petitioners is to be accepted, would it cause any prejudice to the Plaintiffs? In my opinion, no prejudice will be caused to the Plaintiffs as no further pleadings will come on record, but the pleading which is already on record, will be merely adopted by the Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2. Ofcourse this indulgence can be shown to the Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 on condition that they should compensate the Plaintiff as he was forced to pursue proceedings which were on account of lapse and inaction of the Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 and completely avoidable. 6. In the circumstances, this Petition partly succeeds by allowing the application preferred by the Petitioners (Exhibit 58) in part so as to permit them to adopt the written statement of Defendants 3 to 5 already filed on record within time. That indulgence is shown on condition that the Petitioners shall pay cost quantified at Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) to the Plaintiffs within two weeks from today and the proposed purshis as per the assurance given before : 4 : this Court shall be filed within the same time before the Trial Court. 7. Failure to comply with any of the above condition, the Trial Court will proceed on the assumption that the present Petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution and the order dated 18th October 2007 passed by the Trial Court shall stand revived. 8. Petition disposed of on the above terms. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.