(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 177 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 177 OF 2011 1. Vyankat s/o. Tukaram Gaddime, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Hanmantwadi, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur, at present M.G.M. College, Nanded, Taluka : Nanded, District : Nanded. 2. Sow. Padminibai w/o. Vyankat Gaddime, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Household, .. Petitioners R/o. as above. (Original defendants) versus Namdeo s/o. Govind Gaddime, Age : 75 years, Occupation : Agriculture, Through G.P.A. holder, Pralhad s/o. Namdeo Gaddime, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture, (2) R/o. Hanmantwadi, Taluka : Shirur Anantpal, .. Respondent District : Latur. (Original plaintiff) ....................... Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.D. Wange, Advocate, for the respondent / caveator. ........................ WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 2011 1. Vyankat s/o. Tukaram Gaddime, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Hanmantwadi, Taluka : Nilanga, District : Latur, at present M.G.M. College, Nanded, Taluka : Nanded, District : Nanded. 2. Sow. Padminibai w/o. Vyankat Gaddime, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Household, .. Petitioners R/o. as above. (Original defendants) versus (3) Bharat s/o. Bhimrao Gaddime, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Hanmantwadi, Taluka : Shirur Anantpal, .. Respondent District : Latur. (Original plaintiff) ........................... Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.D. Wange, Advocate, for the respondent / caveator. ............................ WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2011 1. Vyankat s/o. Tukaram Gaddime, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Hanmantwadi, Taluka : Nilanga, Dist. : Latur, at present M.G.M. College, Nanded, Taluka : Nanded, District : Nanded. 2. Sow. Padminibai w/o. Vyankat Gaddime, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Household, .. Petitioners R/o. as above. (Original defendants) versus (4) 1. Narsingh s/o. Vithoba Gaddime, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Hanmantwadi, Taluka : Shirur Anantpal, District : Latur. 2. Smt. Radhabai w/o. Vithoba Gaddime, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Respondents R/o. as above. (Original plaintiffs) .............................. Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.D. Wange, Advocate, for respondent no.1 / caveator. ............................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. As the interest of respondent no.2, in Writ Petition No. 241/2011, is being taken care of by respondent no.1, service (5) of notice, upon rule, on respondent no.2 in the said petition, is dispensed with. 3. The trial court initially permitted written statement to be accepted on record, subject to payment of costs. The costs were not deposited within stipulated time. Hence, the petitioner / defendant moved application and requested for permission to deposit costs. The trial court has, vide its order dated 16-8-2010, accepted that amount of costs beyond stipulated time. 4. However, it appears that the trial court found that acceptance of costs beyond time itself had no effect of taking written statement on record. Hence, the petitioner moved another application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and requested the court to accept written statement on record. The trial court found that its order passed earlier below Exhibit 35, accepting written statement on record, if costs were paid within stipulated time, was not challenged and acceptance of costs beyond that time, therefore, did not have the effect of curing lacuna. It, therefore, refused to accept written statement on record. The petitioner / defendant has challenged this later order dated 18-10-2010 in all these matters. 5. According to Mr. A.V. Patil, learned Counsel (6) appearing for the petitioners, costs were to be paid for taking written statement on record and when payment beyond stipulated time was condoned by the court and costs were accepted, it automatically takes written statement on record. 6. Mr. A.D. Wange, learned Counsel appearing for respondents / caveators, contended that this was deliberate and only purpose was to delay adjudication of proceedings. He has urged that in application moved at Exhibit 38, the prayer to take written statement on record, ought to have been made and as that was not made, the trial court has taken correct view of the controversy. 7. There are three suits and in all the three suits, the facts are identical. The trial court has earlier while passing orders on Exhibit 32, directed written statement to be taken on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 150/- and that costs amount was not paid by following date. Because of this omission, another application was moved and on 16-8-2010, payment of costs at later stage was accepted by the trial court. However, the trial court found that such acceptance by itself did not have effect of acceptance of written statement on record. Because of this view, application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was required to be moved and on it, impugned order (7) came to be passed. 8. It is apparent that costs were imposed as a condition for taking written statement on record. Payment of costs was not within time and hence specific application again was required to be moved. That application was granted. Once application was allowed and delayed payment of costs accepted, the period given in the order earlier, while imposing costs, automatically stands extended. The written statement ought to have been taken on record. The view taken by the trial court is too technical. However, it is not necessary for this court to go into more details of the matter, at this stage. The suit is of the year 2009 and interest of justice can be met by directing petitioner / defendant to pay additional costs of Rs. 350/- each to each of the plaintiffs in these suits. 9. In the result, the petitions are partly allowed. (i) The impugned orders dated 18-10-2010, passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nilanga, below Exhibit 39, in Regular Civil Suit No. 266/2009, below Exhibit 36, in Regular Civil Suit No. 275/2009, and below Exhibit 39, in Regular Civil Suit No. 272/2009, are quashed and set aside. (8) (ii) The petitioners / defendants are directed to pay additional costs of Rs. 350/- [Rupees three hundred and fifty only] to each of the plaintiffs in the suits. If the costs are so deposited in the trial court by 8th February 2011, the trial court shall accept the written statement of the petitioners on record and proceed further with the trial. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp177etc