:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6996 OF 2007 Anna Appa Shingade and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Narhari Subhedar Shingade and Ors. ....Respondents ====== Rahul Kadam i/by. U.P.Warunjikar, Adv. for the petitioners. Rahul S.Kate Adv. for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 29TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This is a Writ Petition which has been placed on record for want of compliance with the office objections pertaining to service. 2. However, at the stage at which the matter was placed, the petitioner and Mr.Kate appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 agree that the petition itself be taken up and disposed off. Mr.Warunjikar prays for leave to delete Respondent nos.5 and 6 to this Writ Petition but with liberty to implead the heirs of :2: :2: :2: Respondent no.5 in the Trial Court and to proceed against the respondent no.6, as well as, Respondent No.7 there. 3. This Writ Petition is directed against an Order passed below Exhibit-66 in R.C.Suit No. 207 of 1993. The Learned Judge has rejected the Application of the present petitioners to recall the order of ‘No W.S.’. Mr.Warunjikar, states that all the petitioners had applied for the order being recalled and the Written Statement be allowed to be tendered. The ‘No W.S.’ order is passed on 18.01.2001. The impugned order has been passed on 3.5.2007. 4. In the meanwhile, the Trial Court has permitted petitioner nos.3 and 9 to tender their Written Statements and they are taken on record. Petitioner no.3, Nandabai Dyandeo Pawar has filed her Written Statement which is taken on record. Similarly, petitioner no.9 Vandana Anna Shingade has also filed her Written Statement, which is on record of the Trial Court. Both the Written Statement have been taken on record and therefore the Writ Petition is not pressed :3: :3: :3: as far these petitioners are concerned. The other petitioners seek liberty to file a Purshis in the trial court stating therein that they will adopt the Written Statement of the said Nandabai Pawar and Vandana Shingade as their Written Statement and not file any separate Written Statement. 5. It is therefore prayed that in the light of these submissions, appropriate orders in the interest of justice be passed :- 6. Mr.Kate appears for the original plaintiffs and states that the ‘No W.S.Order’ is passed in 2001. The Application is filed after a lapse of nearly 6 years and therefore this court should not pass any orders at this stage. 7. In my view, if the Written Statement of some of the defendants has been taken on record and the others are not desirous of filing any Written Statement, but, adopt the same as their Written Statement, then, in the peculiar facts of this case any larger controversy need not be gone into. This Writ :4: :4: :4: Petition can be disposed off by permitting the petitioners, other than, petitioner nos.3 and 9 to file a purshis in the Trial Court praying that they adopt the Written Statement of these defendants, Nandabai Pawar and Vandana Shingade as their Written Statement. Such precipe/purshis to be filed within 2 weeks. If the same is filed, the suit to proceed. Since, the suit is of 1993 and parties thereto are senior citizens, the same be disposed off as expeditiously as possible. sd/- ********