:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7174 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7174 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7174 OF 2007 Arvind Narayan Inamdar & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Thrimati Developers & Services & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. N. J. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr. A. M. Shete for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. After hearing the matter for some time, it appears that the impugned order is to be set aside on the ground that the written statement of defendant No.1 has been allowed to be taken on record without assigning any reasons. Reasons have been given for taking the written statement of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on record i.e. their old age and poor health. That reason would obviously not apply to the defendant No.1. However, the controversy regarding the power of the court to :2: accept the written statement after No written statement Order has been passed earlier has been set at rest by a decision of Division Bench in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd., through General Manager Western Coalfields Ltd., through General Manager Western Coalfields Ltd., through General Manager (Planning) Nagpur vs. Rajkumar Kanhiyalal (Planning) Nagpur vs. Rajkumar Kanhiyalal (Planning) Nagpur vs. Rajkumar Kanhiyalal Bhiwapurkar & Ors. [1986 Mh.L.J. 525] Bhiwapurkar & Ors. [1986 Mh.L.J. 525] Bhiwapurkar & Ors. [1986 Mh.L.J. 525] followed in the case of Vivek s/o. Lt. R.B. Mokadam vs. Smt. Vivek s/o. Lt. R.B. Mokadam vs. Smt. Vivek s/o. Lt. R.B. Mokadam vs. Smt. Kiran w/o. S. K. Nashine [2007 (6) ALL MR 752], Kiran w/o. S. K. Nashine [2007 (6) ALL MR 752], Kiran w/o. S. K. Nashine [2007 (6) ALL MR 752], the court was entitled to take written statement on record. 3. However, since no reasons have been given as regards defendant No.1, the matter is remanded back for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Written Statement of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 will stand accepted. The trial court will only consider the reasons germane to the defendant No. 1. 4. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)