jpc 1 wp8942 & 8944-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8942 OF 2011 Satish Dhirajlal Vithlani and others- Present Trustees of Khimji Bhagwandas Charity Trust ... Petitioners Versus Mr. Sanjay Bora ... Respondent WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8944 OF 2011 Satish Dhirajlal Vithlani and others- Present Trustees of Khimji Bhagwandas Charity Trust ... Petitioners Versus The Bank of Rajasthan Limited ... Respondent Mr. Suraj Shah, for the petitioners in both the above petitions Mr. J. V. Parmar, for the Respondent in W.P. No. 8942/11 None for the respondent in W. P. No. 8944/11 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 8th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. The order impugned in the above petitions are the one allowing the applications of the defendants for taking their written statement on record. Both the orders impugned are dated 9th September, 2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai. 2. The petitioners in both the above petitions are the trustees of Khimji Bhagwandas Charity Trust. The said trustees have filed the suit in question bearing T.E. & R., Suit no.5/6 of 2007 for seeking eviction of jpc 2 wp8942 & 8944-11.sxw 126 defendants from the property being a open plot of land. The summons came to be served on the defendants i.e. the respondents above named. In so far as Writ Petition No. 8942 of 2011 is concerned, the same was served on 24th November, 2008 and on 28th January, 2008 in so far as the respondent in Writ Petition NO. 8944 of 2011 is concerned. However, the defendant No. 124 who is respondent in Writ Petition No. 8942 of 2011 and Defendant no. 37 who is respondent in Writ Petition No. 8944 of 2011 did not file their written statements within the period stipulated under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said defendants, thereafter filed respective applications i.e. Application Exh.232 and Exh. 95 in the trial Court for condonation of delay in filing their written statements. 3. The sum and substance of the reasons mentioned by the defendants in the said applications are that on account of their business, they were traveling and therefore could not take steps to file their written statements earlier. It was further averred that there were as many as 126 other defendants and various applications are yet pending before the learned Judge who is hearing the suit. The applications filed by the defendants were opposed by the petitioners herein by filing their reply. The trial Court Court, by the impugned orders dated 9th September, 2011 has allowed the said applications. A reading jpc 3 wp8942 & 8944-11.sxw of the said orders discloses that the reasons mentioned by the said two defendants were found worthy of acceptance by the trial Court for condonation of delay in filing of the written statements. The learned trial Court alluded to the fact that there is as many as 126 defendants in the said suit and therefore some time has elapsed in filing of the written statements. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Shah that it is only for just and exceptional reasons that the delay in filing the written statement could be condoned. The learned counsel would contend that ordinarily the time frame mentioned in Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code has to be adhered to and departure from the said time frame can only be by way of an exception. The learned counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others, reported in 2005 SCFBRC 248. 5. Per contra, it is submitted by the the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant that it is only for the reasons mentioned in the application that the written statement could not be filed by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 8942 of 2011. The trial Court, as can be seen, has taken into consideration the reasons mentioned by the applicants i.e. defendants in their applications for condonation of delay and has also adverted to the fact that there are as many as 126 jpc 4 wp8942 & 8944-11.sxw defendants and various applications are pending before the trial Court. The trial Court has, therefore, deemed it fit to exercise discretion in favour of the defendants by allowing them to file their written statements though belated. 6. It is well settled that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code are directory as held by the Apex Court in the case of Kaillash Supra and for just and sufficient reasons, there can be a departure from the time frame mentioned under the said provision. In the instant case, the trial Court has deemed it fit to exercise discretion in favour of the defendants who were the applicants. In my view, there is no warrant for this court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. In that view of the matter, no case for interference at this hands of this Court in its in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, considering the fact that the suit in question is filed by the trust for eviction, it would be just and proper to expedite the hearing of the said suit and the suit is accordingly expedited. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)