WP. 4700-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 4700 OF 2011 Noble Hardware & Electrical Stores ...Petitioner Vs. M/s. Romell Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent *** Mr. Rajesh G. Singh i/b Legal Liaisons, for the Petitioner. Mr. Jay Savla i/b M. P. Savla, for the Respondent. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JULY 4, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent. Petition is the original defendant/tenant while respondent is the original plaintiff/landlord. A suit for eviction of the defendant/tenant was filed on the ground that the plaintiff required the suit premises for reconstruction and redevelopment. The suit summons was served on 10th December, 2009 and in view of provisions of Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the written- statement was to be filed filed within one month. The defendant, WP. 4700-11 - 2 - however, filed an application seeking leave of the Court to file written statement after 15 months. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and the trial Court, therefore, has dismissed his application. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ defendant submits that his advocate has gone to his native place and therefore, written-statement could not be filed in time. It is further submitted that defendant was unwell and this also one additional reason why the written-statement could not be filed in time. The trial court has given cogent reasons while rejecting the application. The trial court has observed that it was always open for the advocate on record to have asked his junior to draft the written-statement. The trial court has further observed that it was obvious that the defendant was trying to protract the proceedings. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. The intention of the Legislature in amending the Order 8, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, was to ensure that defendants do not protract the trial by not filing the written-statement after the service of the writ of summons and therefore, for this reason, limitation of 30 days for filing the written-statement is prescribed. Further latitude was given to the defendants to file the written-statement within a period of 90 days. The Apex Court in several cases has observed that though the said WP. 4700-11 - 3 - provision is not mandatory and a discretion vests in the trial court to condone the delay in filing the written statement. The said discretion has to be exercised judiciously. In the present case the trial court has given cogent reasons why it has come to the conclusion that delay should not be condoned. In my view, this is is not a fit case for interfering with the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Civil Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]