dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.7177 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7177 OF 2008 PETITION NO.7177 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.R.H.Mirza i/b.h.E.Palve for the Petitioners. Ms.Sheela Tambe i/by Manoj Bhatt for respondents 3 and 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 21st October, 2008. : 21st October, 2008. : 21st October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The petitioner/original landlord has challenged the order of revisional court whereby an application to file written statement of defendants 3 and 4 has been allowed by reversing the order passed by the trial court. The delay is of about 190 days. The matter is at the stage of filing written statement. Defendants 3 and 4 are admittedly in possession of the property. The reason for condoning the delay is basically revolve around the illness of mother. There are documents placed on record. Considering the fact ( 2 ) that even otherwise to avoid further delay in such proceedings, it is desirable that all defendants to participate in the proceedings as early as possible so that at later stage for want of written statement, the proceedings of the matter should not be hampered. In a given case the court may always take cognizance of these aspects and grant opportunity to the defendants to file their written statement. In my view, it is in the interest of the plaintiff in such suit that all the contesting parties are actually whosoever are in possession should participate in the proceedings as early as possible. Even otherwise, there is no perversity in granting such opportunity to the defendants. With this reasoning, I see there is no case to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is dismissed accordingly. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.] ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]