1 lpa-78.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Naresh H. Patil & A. H. Joshi, JJ. Date : 2.9.2011 Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate, for appellant. Shri P. S. Chavan, Advocate, for Resp. No. 1. --------- 1. Heard. Admit. 2. The Letters Patent Appeal is heard finally at admission stage, with the consent of parties. 3. The appellant are defendants in suit, i.e. R.C.S. No. 191 of 2010 pending before the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur. The appellants did not file written statement in time and, therefore, "No Written Statement" order was passed. The appellants, on 11.8.2010, filed an application before the learned Civil Judge for setting aside "No Written Statement Order". 4. On the said application, the learned Civil Judge passed following order: 2 lpa-78.11 " To give an opportunity to defts. & to decide matter on merits and in view of contentions raised in appln the exparte order against deft. no. 4 & 5 is set aside subject to cost of Rs.500/- to pay pltff. till further date. " Thereafter, on 15.10.2010, the learned Civil Judge passed following order. "Deft. failed to deposit or pay the costs as ordered on 23.9.2010. Thus the order of setting aside exparte order is hereby recalled back and set aside." 5. The appellants thereafter filed an application on 15.12.2010 for recalling the order dated 15.10.2010 and taking the written statement on record. However, the said application was rejected by the trial court which was subject-matter of Writ Petition No.593 of 2011. 6. By an order dated 25.1.2011, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, which order is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. We have perused the orders passed by the trial court, as well as by the learned Single Judge, and we have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In the facts of the case, we find that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the appellants-defendants not to file written statement, or deposit costs as directed by the trial court. 3 lpa-78.11 The fact, however, remains that due to inaction on the part of the appellants, hearing of the suit got delayed. 9. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions advanced, we are of the view that the appellant-defendant could be allowed to deposit costs of ` 500/= along with further costs of ` 2,000/= to be paid to the respondent-plaintiff today itself. Shri Bhavthankar, learned Advocate for the appellants, on instructions, undertakes to pay to the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff , an amount of ` 2,500/=. The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that he has received an amount of ` 2500/= from the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants. 10. In view of the observations made above, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned orders passed by the trial court, and the learned Single Judge, are set aside, accordingly. 11. The hearing of R.C.S. No.191 of 2010 pending before the court of the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Latur, is expedited. 12. The appeal is allowed. (A. H. JOSHI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) pnd/lpa-78.11