spb/- 1 wp3050-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3050 OF 2011 Shri Vasant Prabhashankar Bhat ... Petitioner. V/s. Veershaiv Co­opertive Bank Ltd., ... Respondent. ­­­ Mr. P.M.Arjunwadkar for the Petitioner. Mr. Amit Borkar for the Respondent No.1. ­­­­­ CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. : 1 Rule. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal at the admission stage. 2 An order passed below Exh. 14 in R.C. Suit No. 287/2009, refusing the request made by the defendants for setting aside “No W.S.” order and for acceptance of the written statement placed on record having been turned down by the trial court is subjected to challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner (original defendant) is a tenant and a suit is instituted by the plaintiffs seeking recovery of possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of spb/- 2 wp3050-11.sxw bonafide requirement and other grounds. The suit summons were served to the defendants on 04.12.2009. As the defendant failed to present the written statement within the stipulated period, the trial court passed “No written statement” order on 02.03.2010. The petitioner (original defendant) has moved an application, requesting the court to set aside “No WS” order and permitting the defendant to place on record the written statement as 19.06.2010. However, the said application has been turned down by the trial court. In the application presented by the petitioner, he has set out the grounds for his failure to file written statement within the stipulated period to the effect that he was suffering from some heart ailment and as a result of ailment suffered by him he could not take effective steps to instruct his counsel to prepare and file written statement. The grounds noted in the application appears to be genuine and acceptable. The trial court ought to have adopted liberal approach in the matter and ought to have permitted the defendants to place on record the written statement. Inconvenience caused to the plaintiffs can be compensated by directing the defendant tenant to pay costs. 3 For the reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly, allowed and the order passed below Exh. 14 in R.C. Suit 287 of 2009 decided on 03.12.2010 is hereby set aside and spb/- 3 wp3050-11.sxw the application tendered by the plaintiffs defendant at Exh. 14 shall be deemed to have been allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2000/­. The amount of costs shall be deposited before the trial court or may be paid directly to the plaintiffs within three weeks from today. 4 Rule is accordingly made absolute. [R.M. BORDE,J]