1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2997 OF 2010 Suryakant S/o Wamanrao Pande age 38 years, Occ-Business r/o Sambhajinagar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. .. PETITIONER [ORIG.DEFT.NO.3] V E R S U S 1] Dnyanraj s/o Subhashrao Khupse age 20 years, Occ-Agri. 2] Tukaram s/o Subhashrao Khupse age 18 years, occ-Agri. 3] Sumitra w/o Subhashrao Khupse age 41 years, occ-household 4] Subhashrao s/o Laxmanrao Khuse age 50 years, occ-Agri 5] Shriram s/o Subhashrao Khupse age 23 years, Occ-agril. All r/o Borwand (Kh) Tq.& Dist.Parbhani. .. RESPONDENTS [RESP.NO.1 TO 3 ORIG.PLTF. AND RESP.NO.4 AND 5 2 ORIG.DEFT.NO.1 AND 2] .... Shri Rahul P. Dhase,Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Chavan,Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5. .... CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, Petition is taken for final disposal at admission stage. 2] The order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani below Exh.22 in Special Suit No.42/2009 on 14/2/2010, thereby refusing permission to the defendant- no.3 – petitioner herein, to place on record written statement is subjected to challenge in this petition. 3 3] The respondent-orig.plaintiff instituted suit claiming partition and separate possession as well as recovery of possession of the property. The suit was instituted on 30/4/2009 and suit summons were duly served on the petitioner deft.no.3 on 19/5/2009. Petitioner made his appearance on 11/6/2009 and presented application requesting the Court to accept written statement being placed on record alongwith application on 19/12/2009. The trial Court however, refused to accept the same and rejected the prayer in respect of acceptance of written statement. 4] I have perused application as well as impugned order passed by the trial Court. So far as the reasons stated in the application for late presentation of written statement is concerned, defendant contends that they were unable to collect required documents for preparation of the written statement. It is also contended in the application that the 4 suit presented is in respect of immovable property and the claim raised in the suit is collusive in nature. 5] It cannot be denied that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. are directory in nature and in exceptional circumstances, wherein, parties make out case for entertaining request in respect of acceptance of written statement,Court can direct acceptance of written statement, even beyond prescribed period. So far as instant matter is concerned, I am of the opinion that proper case is made out for acceptance of the written statement by the petitioner deft.no.3. The suit is in respect of immovable property and the delay occasioned in making the request to the Court is also not unreasonable. Petitioner can be put to term of payment of costs, while entertaining the request. 6] In this view of the matter, petition stands allowed. Order passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani on 5 14/2/2010 below Exh.22 in Special Civil Suit No.42/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside and the application tendered by the petitioner origi.deft.no.3, shall be deemed to have been allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- in the trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today. On deposit of amount of costs, original plaintiff shall have liberty to withdraw the same. In the event of failure to deposit the amount of costs within stipulated period, the order passed in this petition shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. Rule is accordingly made absolute. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ... umg/wp2997-10