1 W.P. 5571.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5571 OF 2011 Babasaheb S/o Baburao Yerme Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Renapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur, permanently residing at Valsangi, Tq. Ahmadpur, Dist. Latur. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Murlidhar S/o Pandharinath Padole Age : 32 Yrs., Occ. Agril., & Advocate, R/o : Renapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. 2. Umakant S/o Chanappa Chandankere Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Agril., & Advocate, R/o : Renapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. 3. Ankush S/o Kishanrao Ingle Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., & Advocate, R/o : Renapur, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. .... RESPONDENTS 2 W.P. 5571.2011 - [ J ] Mr. M.P.Gude, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14/10/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Initially, notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents though served, remained absent. Thereafter again the notice for final disposal is issued to the respondents. Second time also, the notices are served, but none appears for the respondents. The petition is being heard and decided. 3. The present petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court refusing to accept the Written Statement of the present petitioner and refusing to set aside the ‘ No W.S. ’ order. 4. Mr. Gude, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had appeared on 18/06/2010. On 19/07/2010, the petitioner filed an application [ Exh. 126 ] for setting aside ‘ No W.S. ’ order and accepting the Written Statement. The learned counsel contends that the Written Statement was also submitted along with the 3 W.P. 5571.2011 - [ J ] said application. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the dispute pertains to the immovable property and an opportunity deserves to be given to contest the matter. 5. From the perusal of the order, it is manifest that simply because the Written Statement is filed belatedly, the same is not being accepted. The reasons given by the petitioner are not discussed. The dispute pertains to the immovable property. In such circumstances, the present petitioner, who is defendant no. 12, deserves to be given an opportunity to file his Written Statement and contest the matter. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 7. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ C ’. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/W.P. 5571.2011 - [ J ]