: 1 : 383-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 383 OF 2011 Khemchand Ramchand Ramchandani .. Petitioner v/s. Kivi Coatiing Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Khemchand R. Ramchandani petitioner in person Mr. B.N. Agarwal for the respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Agarwal appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing. 2. The S.C. Suit No.2636 of 2005 filed by the respondents was on the board of learned Judge of the City Civil Court on 21st January, 2009. The suit was dismissed in the morning session. At 5.30 p.m. application for restoration of the suit was made. That was adjourned to 23rd January, : 2 : 383-11-wp=.sxw 2009. The suit was restored possibly because the suit was mentioned for restoration on the day when the suit was dismissed. Respondents were directed to inform the petitioner about the adjourned date and pay costs on 25th February, 2009. When the matter was on board, the petitioner remained absent. Hence, the Court passed an order “No Written Statement” and posted the matter for trial on 19th March, 1989. The petitioner thereafter filed an application so as to have order dated 25th February, 2009 set aside, by which no written statement order was passed. That application was rejected by Roznama dated 3rd August, 2009, thereby the petitioner filed another application for review of order dated 3rd August, 2009. That application at Exh.9 was rejected by order dated 31st July, 2010. 3. I have heard learned advocate on both sides. In my view, as the petitioner was appearing as party in person, it was necessary to take a lenient view on the background that at one point of time when the suit came to be dismissed, the same came to be restored by the application filed by the respondents. 4. Purely to see that the petitioner defendant is permitted to defend the : 3 : 383-11-wp=.sxw suit on merits, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 3rd August, 2009. The petitioner will have to be put to costs of Rs.1,000/-. Looking to the fact that the suit is of the year 2005, it will be proper to direct the learned Judge, who is incharge of this suit, to decide the suit by 30th April, 2012. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, following order is passed to dispose of this petition. ORDER (i) Order dated 25th February, 2009 is set aside. (ii)Order dated 3rd August, 2009 is set aside. (iii) Accordingly, petitioner is granted permission to file written statement. The Court is informed that the next date in the City Civil Court, Mumbai is on 3rd October, 2011. Before 3-10-2011 the petitioner shall deposit in the City Civil Court, costs of Rs.1,000/- towards this petition. (iv) On 3rd October, 2011, the petitioner shall produce before the Court receipt showing that the costs have been deposited in the City Civil Court. On perusal of the same, learned Judge of the City Civil Court will allow the petitioner to file written statement. (v) Cost of Rs.1,000/- which will be deposited by the petitioner as above, be paid over to the respondents without security or : 4 : 383-11-wp=.sxw guarantee. (vi) In view of the aforesaid order, nothing survives in the order dated 31st July, 2010. The same is required to be set aside because the petitioner’s prayer that he be permitted to file written statement has been granted. (vii) Since the suit is of the year 2005, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court is hereby directed to hear and dispose of the suit by 30th April, 2012. (viii) All the concerned including the learned Judge of the City Civil Court shall act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)