(1) WP. 3198.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3198 OF 2010 Sanjay Rambhau Mhaske .. Petitioner VERSUS Bhalchandra Bapurao Kulthe and others .. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3202 OF 2010 Rambhau Maroti Mhaske .. Petitioner VERSUS Bhalchandra Bapurao Kulthe and others .. Respondents Mr. Satyajit Bora, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for the respondents ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] By consent, the Petitions are being finally disposed of. 2] By these Petitions the original defendant no.1 and 2 are challenging the order dated 26.3.2010 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karjat on their application (exhibit 35 and 44) in suit (R.C.S. 84 of 2009). By that order, their applications were dismissed and they were denied opportunity to file the written statement. (2) WP. 3198.2010 3] The petitioners appeared in the suit on 25.6.2009 after service of summons. They, however, did not file written statement. They alleged that the defendant no.1 was required to go out of station for earning his livelihood and therefore he could not attend the matter whereas the defendant no.2 was suffering from illness due to old age and was required to be hospitalized. They contended that their written statement could not be filed due to such reasons and there was no intentional default. The applications were opposed by plaintiff/respondent no.1. The learned Judge of the trial Court rejected the application for the reason that the petitioners were required to attend the criminal case during the relevant period and their presence was marked by the Criminal Court and as such it could not be said that they were unable to make it to attend the civil Court and file their written statement. 4] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5] It is true, no doubt, that the written statement is required to be filed within the stipulated period as provided under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Ordinarily, it is to be filed within 30 days and the period is extendable upto 90 days. The Court is however, empowered to grant leave to file the written statement, even after (3) WP. 3198.2010 such a stipulated period, where proper and justifiable reasons are shown by the party. The trial Court no doubt observed that on certain dates, the petitioners were attending the Criminal Court in context of criminal case (R.C.C. 161 of 2008). This was the observation based on copy of roznama perused by the trial Judge. Still, however, it is not noticed where dates whether scheduled in the civil Suit. The compulsive attendance of the petitioners in the criminal case may be on account of different reasons and they might have expected certain laxity when they were not required to attend by way of compulsion. At the same time, one cannot be oblivious of the requirement to facilitate opportunity to put forth the defence when it is found that the delay was not committed with any oblique intention. In such a case, the trial Court should have awarded costs while allowing the petitioners to file their written statement. The procedural cobwebs are not to inflict injustice or to deny opportunity to the party. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is rather arbitrary and liable to be interferred with. 6] In the result, the Petitions are allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioners are directed to file their written statement subject to costs of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One Thousand) each to be paid before the written statement is taken on record. The (4) WP. 3198.2010 costs shall be deposited within a period of 3 weeks. The application filed by the respondent no.1 plaintiff for temporary injunction shall be expeditiously heard and disposed of by the trial Court. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp