(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 690 OF 2011 Deesan Agro Tech Ltd., A-1/2, M.I.D.C. (Add), Awdhan, Taluka & District : Dhule, Through Shri Ashok Mukunda Sonar, Age : 39 years, Occupation : Manager .. Petitioner (Personal & Administration), (Original plaintiff) R/o. at/post : Taluka & Dist. Dhule. versus Godrej Agrovet Ltd., C/o. Shakti Poultry Feed Pvt. Ltd., 79/1, Arvali Pune-Mumbai Road, Panwel, Taluka : Panwel, District : Raigadh, .. Respondent Through its Executive Director & (Original defendant) President, Shri Bairam Singh Yadhav. ....................... Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate, for the petitioner. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The challenge is to the order dated 22-11-2010 passed below Exhibit 32, whereby the trial court has permitted respondent / defendant to deposit costs of Rs. 2000/- imposed earlier towards acceptance of written statement on record. That application at Exhibit 32 has been filed on 28-9-2010. 3. Mr. S.P. Brahme, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, states that the order imposing costs was passed on 23-6-2010 and time till next date was given to pay that costs. On the next date i.e. 30-6-2010, application at Exhibit 26 was moved seeking extension of time to pay the same and that application was immediately rejected. Three months thereafter, application at Exhibit 32 has been filed. According to him, this is totally casual approach and when suit had proceeded further, the trial court should not have allowed it. He further states when Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permits acceptance of written statement only in exceptional (3) circumstances after expiry of period specified therein, the approach of the trial court cannot be stated to be justified. 4. In the present petition, there is no challenge to order permitting respondent to file written statement on record passed on 23-6-2010. The challenge is only to the order by which the court has permitted him to deposit that costs belatedly after rejection of his earlier application seeking extension of time to deposit the same. The suit is still for settlement of issues. 5. In the facts and circumstances, by accepting written statement on record, no grave and serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The discretion exercised by the trial court cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp690