1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.948 OF 2010 Sugrabi Shaikh Habibhullah Petitioner versus Neelkamal Realtors Tower Pvt.Ltd. Respondent Omar K. Shaikh for petitioner. Smt.Manisha B. Gawde for respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 25th March 2010 PC :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. To ensure that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is not delayed, the writ petition is taken-up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. The respondent is the original plaintiff who has filed a suit for eviction in the Court of Small Causes against the petitioner and another. The petitioner is the first defendant in the said suit. The petitioner could not file the written statement within the time stipulated by law. Therefore, an application was made by the petitioner at Exhibit-8 seeking extension of time to file the written statement. By 2 the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the said application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the averments made in the application at Exhibit-8. He pointed out that the written statement could not be filed within time as the advocate concerned could not draft the written statement. He submitted that as the default is on the part of the concerned advocate, extraordinary circumstances were brought on record on the basis of which the delay ought to have been condoned. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition by pointing out that there is hardly any cause shown by the petitioner and unless extraordinary reasons or extraordinary circumstances are pointed out, the Court is powerless to grant extension of time to file the written statement. He, therefore, submitted that no interference is called for. 4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. A perusal of the application made by the petitioner shows that summons was admittedly served to the petitioner. The case which is sought to be made out by the petitioner is that the advocate appointed by the petitioner did not file Vakalatnama because the petitioner could not arrange to pay his fees. Therefore, another advocate was engaged who was not regularly practicing in the concerned Court and, 3 therefore, the said advocate could not draft the written statement. The petitioner was, therefore, forced to engage another advocate to draft the written statement and in fact the written statement was tendered along with the application on which the impugned order has been passed. 5. Learned Trial Judge has noted in the impugned order that on 6th March 2009 two advocates filed Vakalatnama of the petitioner in the suit on her behalf. The learned Trial Judge has observed that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to get the written statement prepared from her advocate within a reasonable time. The averments made in the application show that the advocates appointed did not draft the written statement in time and, therefore, a new advocate was required to be engaged by the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner shows that she was desirous of contesting the suit. But the written statement could not be drafted by her advocate. In the circumstances, a case was made out for permitting the petitioner to file the written statement. The Trial Court ought to have allowed the said application subject to payment of costs. The petition must succeed and amount of costs is quantified at Rs.3,500/-. It is stated that the written statement is already tendered on record along with application at Exhibit-8. 4 6. Hence, I pass following order :- A) The order dated 15th December 2008 is quashed and set aside; B) Application at Exhibit-8 is allowed subject to petitioner paying costs of Rs.3,500/- to the respondent within eight weeks from today; C) The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)