:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2008 Amin Anand R. ..Petitioner Vs. Asmita Mogra Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ..Respondents Mr. Ketan A. Chothani for petitioner. Mr. A.L.N. Khalri for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 01, 2008. Date : April 01, 2008. Date : April 01, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-society. In the normal course the petitioner could have been directed to file a revision/appeal against the impugned order dated 23/3/2007 but that would cause further delay in the trial of the suit filed by the respondent-society and, therefore, this petition is being disposed off with certain directions so that the pending suit is decided expeditiously. :2: 2. Though the summons were served on the defendant no.2 - present petitioner, as per the bailiff report dated 7/7/2001 he did not appear and file the Written Statement in RAE Suit No. 443 of 2001 which has been filed by the present respondent-society. Consequently, the trial court proceeded to pass an order dated 27/11/2003 so as to proceed with the suit ex parte. On or about 25/9/2006 the petitioner submitted an application praying to condone the delay and to set aside the order dated 27/11/2003. The petitioner also sought leave to place on record the Written Statement and prayed for hearing of the suit on merits. The society opposed the said application by filing the say on or about 17/10/2006 and the trial court was pleased to reject the application by its order dated 23/3/2007. Instead of challenging the said order by way of revision/appeal, the petitioner filed Review Application No.1 of 2007 and the same has been dismissed on 2/12/2007. This petition has been filed after more than three months i.e. on 25/2/2008. It is thus clear that the intentions of the petitioner are writ large and only to delay the trial of the suit. :3: 3. Notwithstanding, the malice exhibited in the acts of the petitioner, it would be appropriate that the suit filed by the society is decided on merits and that could be done by allowing the petitioner to file his Written Statement but by imposing an exemplary sum of costs. The learned counsel for the society also submitted that the suit should be decided within a fixed period. He further stated that the society may examine at the most three witnesses and the defendant no.2, the present petitioner, may examine himself and at the most one more witness, as has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions. 4. Hence, the petition is disposed off by following directions:- (a) If the petitioner presents his Written Statement within one week before the trial court in RAE Suit No. 443 of 2001, the same shall be taken on record and exhibited, provided the petitioner remits an amount of :4: Rs.25,000/- by way of costs within a period of two weeks from today with the trial court. (b) The deposit amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the plaintiff-society. (c) The suit shall be heard and decided by the trial court by 31st October, 2008. (d) The respective parties shall co-operate and ensure that the witnesses are examined as noted hereinabove on the given dates and they shall not seek any adjournments. (e) If so desired, the defendant no.2 may pay the amount of costs of Rs.25,000/- directly to the society within a period of two weeks from today and the receipt to be issued by the society shall be placed on record soon thereafter. :5: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)