1 wp 4053.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4053 OF 2011 Shakuntala Ashok Gaikwad & ors. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents Shri S. S. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V. H. Dige, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who had filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The defendant Nos. 3 to 5 though appeared did not file written statement for long time. Thereafter, the present petitioners filed examination in chief on affidavit. After the petitioners filed the examination in chief on affidavit, the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 filed an application below Exhibit 40 and 44 for setting aside no W.S. order and acceptance of the written statement. Said applications are allowed. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiffs have filed the present writ 2 wp 4053.11 petition. 2. Shri Thombre, the learned counsel for petitioners vehemently submits that the defendants in their applications have not spelt out any ground which can be said to be sufficient for condoning the delay in non filing of the written statement for a long slumber of two years. According to the learned counsel Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code has been totally ignored by the Trial Judge. Order VIII Rule 1 mandates filing of written statement within a month or at a extended period provided sufficient cause is shown. In the present case perusal of applications, there is absolutely no cause muchless sufficient cause has been stated. The learned counsel submits that the Court below has not properly exercised the discretion in allowing the said applications. 3. No doubt, there is delay on the part of defendants in filing the applications for setting aside no written statement order and the applications state that the ground of illness for which no certificates are annexed. 4. The suit is for partition and separate possessing dealing 3 wp 4053.11 with the immovable property. In such matters it is always desirable to decide the matter on merits. Liberal approach in such matters is required to be given. In view of above facts, the discretion has already been exercised by the Trial Judge. I do not see any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Judge. The writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11