1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2699 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.855 OF 1981 Kirit Kantilal Dalal .. Plaintiff Versus Bombay Builders P.Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Modi i/b.S.Pathare & Co. for plaintiff Mr.G.Joshi with A.Joshi i/b. Mulla & Mulla for defendant No.1 Mr.Pankaj Pandit i/b. Pragna Thakkar & Co. for defendant No.2 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 14th October 2008 P.C. . In a suit filed in the year 1981, defendant No.1 seeks to place the written statement on record. The request is to condone the delay and take written statement on file. 2. The only contention raised before me is that writ of summons was not served on the first defendant company. In the affidavit, it is 2 stated that the first defendant is a company of which the deponent is now a Director. The suit is for specific performance. The defendants state in the affidavit in support itself that they had engaged M/s.Shroff and Company as their Advocate to appear in the matter. The said Advocates have taken discharge in the year 1984 and thereafter the present Advocates have been engaged. The reason is that inadvertently, the written statement was not filed. Husband of the deponent expired in 2001 and legal matter were attended by him. 3. Reliance is also placed upon a Division Bench judgement reported in 2007(5) Bom.C.R.557 (Tardeo Properties Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda) to urge that when writ of summons in the suit was not served on defendant No.1 earlier delay should be condoned and no costs be imposed. 4. I have perused the affidavit in support. 3 I am of the view that written statement can be taken on record but in the peculiar facts of this case, it does not appear to me that defendant No.1 was totally unaware of the suit being filed. In such circumstances and when they were represented by the Advocates, now stating that they were unaware of the withdrawal of appearance of their earlier Advocates is something which would not justify their inaction in the matter. However, in the larger interest of justice, written statement is allowed to be taken on record by condoning the delay. Motion is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.2500/-. Costs to paid to plaintiffs within two weeks from today. On proof of payment being produced, the written statement be taken on record and the suit be proceeded in accordance with law. By consent, time to record evidence is extended by three months. 4 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)