1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5482 OF 2009 Ganesh s/o Kalidas Mali, Age 22 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Katgaon, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad, through his Power of Attorney Kalidas s/o. Ram Mali, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Katgaon, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. Bhagabai w/o. Vishwanath Mali, Age 50 yrs., Occu. Household, R/o. Kadgaon, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Keshav Bhima Mali, Age 55 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Kadgaon, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Respondents. Shri. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. K.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No. 1. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 9th June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 10.7.2009 passed 2 below Exh. 19 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Tuljapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 234/2008. The petitioner is the defendant No. 1 and had filed an application for permission to file written statement. Written statement was required tobe filed within a period of 90 days and since it was filed beyond the said period, the Trial Court has held that it has no power to allow the application after lapse of 90 days. This order is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 2. Notice before admission was issued in this matter on 21st August 2009 and interim stay was granted to Regular Civil Suit No. 234/2008 pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur. Shri. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appears in response to the notice of this Court on behalf of the respondent No. 1/original plaintiff. Though respondent No. 2 is served, none appears for him. 3. Shri. Choudhari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 is not contesting party and it is the plaintiff, who had opposed the application for permission to file the written statement. Hence, according to him, no fresh notice may be necessary tobe served upon respondent No. 2, as no prejudice would be caused to him even if written statement is taken on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 1 agree that the matter can be decided at this stage finally. Hence, Rule, made 3 returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally by consent of parties. The service upon respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. 5. No doubt, it is true that the written statement has not been filed within a period of 90 days. However, the cause shown for non filing the written statement within the period of 90 days, seems to be sufficient. Hence, in the interest of justice, the application needs to be allowed by imposing cost upon the petitioner/defendant No. 1 for delay caused in filing the written statement. 6. In the result, the instant writ petition succeeds. The order dated 10.7.2009 passed by the Trial Court below Exh. 19 in Regular Civil Suit No. 234/2008, rejecting the application for permission to file the written statement on record, is hereby quashed and set aside. The application is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to take on record the written statement. The defendant No. 1 shall pay cost of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred) in addition to the cost of Rs. 200/- (Rs. two hundred) to the plaintiff, which is directed to be paid by the Trial Court. The petition is thus allowed in above terms. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the suit. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp5482.09