jpc wp7091-10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7091 OF 2010 Shankar Narayan Pagade ... Petitioner Versus Rohidas Shankar Asawale and others ... Respondents Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the petitioner Mr. M. P. Wamorkar i/by Maravoor Wamorkar & Asso. for the respondents CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 24th November, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 6th February, 2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon Maval by which order, the application Exh.24 for setting aside the "No W.S. Order" and for taking written statement on record has been rejected. 3. The respondents have field a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. jpc wp7091-10.sxw 2 61 of 2005 for setting aside of the sale deed executed by the petitioners. The time extended for filing written statement expired on 7/9/2006. Though the defendant appeared in the said suit, he did not file written statement and ultimately, "No W. S. order" came to be passed on 17th October, 2006. Thereafter on 22nd June, 2007 that the defendant moved an application for setting aside the order of "no W. S. order" and for taking of the written statement on record which was filed along with the said application Exh.24. 4. As indicated above, the said application came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 6/2/2010, principally on the ground that though the defendant had appeared before the court on 7/6/2006, the application in question has been filed after a period of one year. No doubt there has been delay on the part of the defendant in filing of the written statement. The reason for the same has been mentioned in the application Exh.24, which is to the effect that some time was lost in collecting the documents which were necessary for filing of the written statement. It is well settled, for just and proper reason the time to file written statement can be extended as Order 8 Rule 1 is held to be directory and not mandatory. In my view if "No W.S. order" is allowed to stand, the defendant would be rendered defenceless in the said suit. jpc wp7091-10.sxw 3 However, the written statement of the defendants can be allowed to be taken on record, for which the plaintiffs can be compensated by way of costs. In that view of matter, the order dated 6th February, 2010 is required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the application Exh.24 would stand allowed. The trial court is directed to take the written statement filed by the defendants on record. 5. Defendants to pay costs of Rs.500, to the respondents/plaintiffs within four weeks from date. The defendant to produce the evidence of having paid the said cost to the plaintiffs, in the trial court. 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their regular costs. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)