IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3249 of 2008. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3249 of 2008. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3249 of 2008. IN IN IN SUIT NO.1211 of 1992. SUIT NO.1211 of 1992. SUIT NO.1211 of 1992. Premkumar Rameshwarprasad Gupta ..Plaintiff versus Mrs.Shyamdevi R. Agarwal & Ors. ..Defendants Mr.Rakesh P. Tripathi i/b. Smt. Geeta Jain for the Plaintiff Mr.Bipin Joshi for the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 Ms.Madhavi Mahadik for the Defendant No.3 Mr.J.P.Singh for the defendant Nos.4 and 5 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd Sept., 2008. DATED : 22nd Sept., 2008. DATED : 22nd Sept., 2008. P.C. 1. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 have taken out this Motion No.3249 of 2008 so as to getthe Orderdated 7.2.1997 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master, as well as the Order dated 11.6.2008 passed by the Court set aisde and to have written statement of defendant Nos.4 and 5 on record. Affidavit in reply is filed by the learned advocate for the plaintiffs. Learned Advocate Mr. Singh submitted that there has been typographical mistake in the prayer clause of the Notice of Motion and the prayer clause is to be read so as to see that -2- written statement of defendant Nos.4 and 5 be taken on record. He submitted that instead of defendant Nos.4 and 5 it is shown as defendant No.2. He prayed for passing an appropriate Order keeping in view the Notice of Motion and the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. I have heard learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff as well as for the defendant Nos.4 and 5. Present suit is filed for administration of estate of deceased R.P.Agarwal who happens to be the father of defendant Nos.4 and 5. Similarly plaintiff happens to be the son of said R.P.Agarwal, since deceased. Since the present suit is for administratin of estate of deceased R.P.Agarwal, I am inclined to take the view that the delay which has occassioned in filing the written statement can be condoned and the two orders passed against the present defendant Nos.4 and 5, namely Orders dated 7.2.1987 and 11.6.2008 can be set aside and the defendant Nos.4 and 5 can be permitted to file written statement. This can be done by directing the defendant Nos.4 and 5 to pay cost of Rs.5000/- towards this motion. Hence the Order. ORDER -3- . The Order dated 7.2.1987 passed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master and the Order dated 11.6.2008 passed by this Court directing that the suit is transferred to the list of undefended suit and to proceed with the suit without written statement is set aside. The defendant Nos.4 and 5 are permitted to file written statement. They should file the written statement on 6.10.2008 after paying cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the plaintiffs/advocate for the plaintiffs. . Suit stands adjourned to 6.10.2008 in the Column for filig written statement. Before that the defendant Nos.4 and 5 to pay to the plaintiffs cost of Rs.5000/-. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)