:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.416 OF 2008 PETITION NO.416 OF 2008 PETITION NO.416 OF 2008 Premlata Laxminarayan Kalantri & Anr. ..Petitioners V/s Satyabhamabai Nimba Deshmukh & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. M.M. Sathaye for the petitioners Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the responden for respodnent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. : A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 6TH JUNE, 2008 : 6TH JUNE, 2008 : 6TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. This petition impugns the order dated 28-8-2007, passed by Jt.C.D.J.D. Malegaon, whereby the application for the petitioners, who are the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in the suit for permission to file written statement has been rejected. 2. The writ of summons was served on 17-07-2001 and the application by the petitioner was filed on 31-01-2007. The explanation for the delay is stated to be that the petitioners had negotiations with respondent No.1/plaintiff and the respondent No.1/plaintiff had assured the petitioners that she shall not prosecute the suit and withdraw the same. :2: No reply is filed to controvert the averments in the application for condonation of delay. On going through the impugned order I find that the trial Court has observed that in view of the amendment to the CPC of year 2002, maximum period to file written statement is 90 days from the date of service of summons and accordingly the Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioner to take written statement on record. Undisputedly the service of witness summons was effected in 2001 i.e. prior to the amendment of 2002 to the CPC and the Trial Court has not taken into consideration this fact. The respondent has not filed any reply controverting the averments regarding the assurance given by her that she would not be prosecuting the suit and that the same would be withdrawn by her 3. In my view, considering the fact that the witness summons was served sometime before the amendment of 2002 to the CPC the Trial Court ought to have taken a liberal view in the matter so as to advance the cause of justice, and the petitioner should be allowed to defend the suit In the interest of justice it would be appropriate that the :3: petitioners are allowed to file their written statement and to defend the suit and the respondent NO.1 be compensated therefor. 4. In this view of the matter the impugned order is set aside. The petitioners are allowed to file written statement subject to costs of Rs. 2500/- to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.1. Payment of costs is condition precedent. The Trial Court is directed to take on file the written statement and proceed with the hearing of the suit. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit is expedited and the Trial Court is requested to dispose of the same, preferably within a period of one year from today. 5, The petition stands disposed of. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)