1 wp1300.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2011 Raghunath S/o Dhondiba Kale ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Rupchand S/o Manikrao Dahihande and another. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.D. Kotkar holding for Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 25TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocates Mr. Kotkar holding for Mr. Shinde for petitioner and Mr. Sonpethkar for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. In 1991, the petitioner-plaintiff filed suit for declaration and injunction. It was proceeded exparte against the defendants some time in 1991 or 1992. On 19.09.1992, the suit was decreed exparte. The defendants then filed M.A.R.J.I. no. 223/1996 for setting aside that exparte decree and that was granted on 02.08.2010. On 08.12.2010, the trial Court directed defendants to file their written statement by next date and on next date i.e. on 16.10.2010 as written statement was not filed, `No W.S.' order came to be passed. On 20.12.2010, the defendants then moved 2 wp1300.11 application for setting aside that order. The application was opposed by petitioner-plaintiff and on 11.01.2010, the 10th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad allowed that application and accepted written statement on record. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the suit was already proceeded exparte and after setting aside the exparte decree, unless and until that order was set aside, written statement could not have been taken on record. 4. According to Advocate Mr. Sonpethkar, the present respondents were proceeded without written statement some time in 1991-92 and thereafter the suit was dismissed in default. It was restored without any notice to them and after its restoration, it came to be decreed again without any notice to them and hence, that decree has been set aside on 02.08.2010. Learned counsel then states that there was express directions by the trial Court to file written statement and thereafter written statement has been taken on record. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I find that though technically order of No W.S. order passed way back in 1991-92 was not set aside, on 08.12.2010, after the suit was 3 wp1300.11 restored trial Court directed the present respondents-defendants to file their written statement by next date. The written statement was not filed on next date and hence, Court again proceeded without written statement. Four days thereafter application was moved and trial court has granted that application and accepted the written statement on record. These developments therefore clearly show that the earlier orders passed way back in 1991-92 can no longer be viewed as valid. Even, the order dated 08.12.2010 is not questioned before me in the present matter. 6. In any case, the suit is of the year 1991 and trial Court has exercised its discretion and in the circumstances accepted the written statement on record, there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Hence, Petition is rejected. No costs. 7. However, considering the fact that suit is of the year 1991, trial Court is directed to see same shall be disposed of finally as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2011. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp1300.11