1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7852 OF 2010 M.C.G.M. ...Petitioner. v. Rakesh R. Pahuja ...Respondent. Mr.N.V.Walawalkar Sr.Counsel a/w P.G.Lad and M.M.Malvankar, advs., for the petitioner. Ms S.A.Subhedar, adv., for the respondent. CORAM : J.H.Bhatia, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 P.C.: 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Petitioner Municipal Corporation is the original defendant in L.C.Suit No.7514 of 1998. In that suit, plaintiff had made amendment in the plaint the suit recently and evidence was not yet commenced. Defendant, who had not filed written statement, sough permission to file written statement on the ground that due to pendency of a lot of litigations, instructions were not received in time. The trial Court accepted this contention and allowed the defendant to file written statement by recalling the earlier orders. The trial Court also directed the Municipal Corporation to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to 2 the plaintiff for delay in filing the written statement. In paragraph 3 of the operative part of the order, the trial Court directed that the amount of cost of Rs.5,000/- shall be recovered from the pocket of the Municipal Commissioner. That part of the order is challenged in the present writ petition. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in the impugned order dated 6th September, 2010, there is no word to indicate that the Municipal Commissioner was personally responsible for the delay. The Municipal Commissioner is the head of the Municipal Corporation having multifarious responsibilities and duties and a large number of staff to run administration of the Municipal Corporation, having population of more than 1.5 crores. It is impossible for the Municipal Commissioner to personally know what litigation is going on before the particular Court and in which matter written statement is filed or not. These matters are looked after by the Legal Department and the concerned ward officer or Assistant Municipal Commissioner or law officer may be responsible for giving appropriate instructions to the advocate for filing the written statement. In such circumstances, there could be no justification to direct the Municipal Commissioner to pay cost from his own pocket. 3 Therefore, that part of the order can not be sustained. In the result, petition is allowed. The impugned order directing the Municipal Commissioner to pay the cost from his own pocket is hereby set aside. Time to deposit cost is extended by further one week from this day. 3 Rule made absolute accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)