1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2621 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.788 OF 1985 Acharya Ganeshdas Swami ....Plaintiff V/s. Bombay Builders Co. Pvt.Ltd and anr ....Defendants Mr. Shukla, i/b Ms Desai & Diwanji, for the Plaintiff. M.Gaurav Joshi, a/w Mr. Avinash Joshi i/b Mulla & Mulla C. B. & C. for Defendant No.1 Mr.Kalpesh Parekh i/b Pragna Thakkar & Co. for Defendant No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 21st NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. I am inclined to allow this application for filing the written statement although it is filed after a delay of over 20 years. 2. The case of Defendant No.1 is that Defendant No.1 was earlier managed by one Mahendra Shah, who expired in the year 2001. He was looking after all the legal affairs of the company. The same are now being looked after by his widow who was unaware of the pendency of this proceeding. The fact still remains that there was a period of 15 years between the filing of the suit and the death of said Mahendra Shah. 2 3. However, in the facts of this case it would be convenient if not necessary to have on record first Defendant’s written statement. This is because Defendant No.2 IDBI entered into an agreement on 18th October, l984 with defendant No.1 under which it purchased the property including a partly constructed building thereon. This agreement refers to various legal proceeding and the suit agreement. According to IDBI, an agreement was actually entered into in the year l980. Thus, even if Defendant No.1 suffers an exparte decree, the same would not bind Defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 would in any event be entitled to urge the defences open to Defendant No.1. 4. In the circumstances the Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) subject to Defendant No.1 paying the costs of this Notice of Motion of Rs.2500/- on or before 31st December, 2009 to the Plaintiff.