1 wp10136.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10136 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. S.S. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. S.S. Shinde for petitioners. Nobody appears for respondent nos. 1 to 3 though they are served with the notice for final disposal. There was no appearance even on 03.02.2011. 2. After hearing Advocate Mr. Shinde for petitioners, it is apparent that on 21.06.2010, the petitioners sought time to file written statement and the trial Court adjourned the matter to 23.07.2010. On 23.07.2010, written statement was filed and separate application for accepting it on record was also moved pointing out that the period of 90 days expired prior to two days. On 23.07.2010, itself the trial Court rejected that prayer after holding that application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay was not filed. 3. It is apparent that the trial Court had fixed the 2 wp10136.10 matter on 23.07.2010 and on that day, written statement was filed. That by itself could not mean that the petitioners could not have filed written statement as per Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. But then in present facts, it was tendered on adjourned date and application was filed seeking leave to file it. There was no question of filing any separate application for condoning the delay. The approach of the trial Court is too technical. 4. The impugned order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the trial Court below Exhibit-15 in Regular Civil Suit No. 37 of 2010 is therefore quashed and set aside. Application at Exhibit-15 is granted and the trial Court shall accept the written statement as filed on record and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The Petition is thus allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.02.2011 gas/wp10136.10