: 1 : 3845-10-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3845 OF 2010 Kerba Dagadu Pawar & Ors. .. Petitioners v/s. Papabhai Imambhai Atar .. Respondent ......... Mr. Milind Deshmukh for the petitioners Mr. Vikas Shivarkar for respondent no.1 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The respondent herein had filed R.C. Suit No.82 of 2009 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Saswad, Dist. Pune. After the filing of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner-defendant appeared before the learned Judge on his own on 25th June, 2009 without formal writ of summons being served upon him. If this is so, the date of service of writ of summons will have to be treated as 25th June, 2009. The petitioner did not file the written statement up to 7th October, 2009. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saswad passed an order saying that : 2 : 3845-10-wp=.sxw the suit shall proceed without say and written statement. 2. The petitioner filed an application below Exh.21 praying that no written statement order be set aside and sought permission to file the written statement. This application at Exh. 21 was rejected by the learned Judge Civil Judge, Junior Division by order dated 6th January, 2010. The petitioner has challenged this order. This application below Exh.21 was filed on 8th December, 2009. 3. Considering the relevant dates, it is clear that the petitioner did not file written statement in time and that is how the order dated 7th October, 2009 is passed. 4. The application at Exh.21 does not mention specific grounds as to why the petitioner could not file written statement within the period permissible as per the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. The only reason mentioned in para 3 of the said application is that the petitioner could not get necessary old papers and information for the purposes of filing the written statement. In my view, this explanation without necessary details and the types of documents which was required by the petitioner for filing : 3 : 3845-10-wp=.sxw written statement, cannot be accepted. If the petitioner has not given appropriate reasons and or explanation as to why he could not file the written statement within permissible period, the application cannot be entertained. He has referred to the judgment in the case of Shelna S. Sawant vs. Sayajirao Ganpatrao Patil, 2004 Vol.4, Mh.LJ 419. 5. The view taken by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Saswad is proper on the facts appearing in this case. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order dated 6th January, 2011. The petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 6. At the stage of issue of notice, this Court has directed to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- thereby if the petition is to be dismissed, the respondent’s interest could be protected by awarding him necessary costs. In my view, the respondent in a case like this is entitled to have costs of Rs.1,000/- so far as this petition is concernd. Hence, appropriate order will have to be passed directing the office to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.1,000/- and repay the sum of Rs.9,000/- out of the total amount of Rs.10,000/- which has been deposited by the petitioner. Hence, following order is passed. : 4 : 3845-10-wp=.sxw ORDER (i) For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, no interference is required in the impugned order dated 6th January, 2010. (ii) Petitioner to pay to respondent a sum of Rs.1,000/- by way of costs of this petition. (iii)Office is directed to pay to respondent no.1 a sum of Rs.1,000/- out of Rs.10,000/- which have been deposited by the petitioner and the office is also directed to repay to the respondent Rs.9,000/- without guarantee or security. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)