1 WP 3929.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3929 OF 2011 1. Dasharath Gangaram Tamboli Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Ratnali, Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. 2. Nitin Gangaram Tamboli Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Ratnali, Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. 3. Sayanna Gangaram Tamboli Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Ratnali, Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. 4. Bharatbai Deorao Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Ratnali, Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. 5. Yenamma Narayan Age : 30 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Ratnali, Dharmabad, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Gangaram @ Karod Linganna Tamboli Age : 85 Yrs., Occ. Agril. R/o : Ratnali, Dharmabad, 2 WP 3929.2011 - [ J ] Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded. At present residing at Kandkurti Mandal Ranjal, Dist. Nizamabad (A.P.) 2. Harikishan Balkishan Zanwar Age : 37 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Devi galli, Dharmabad, Dist. : Nanded. .... PETITIONERS Mr. V.V.Bhavthankar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for Resp. No. 1. Mr. Mukhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 15/07/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The Petitioners assails the order rejecting their applications for setting aside the ‘ No W.S. ’ order and to accept the Written Statement which is filed along with the said application. 3 WP 3929.2011 - [ J ] 4. Mr. Bhavthankar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Written Statement is filed along with the application and only on the ground that 90 days had lapsed, the Written Statement has not been accepted. The Suit is with regard to the rights in respect of an immovable property. The petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 5. Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the petitioners have not stated any sufficient reason for not filing the Written Statement within the stipulated period of 90 days as is required under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court can extend the time only on sufficient reasons being stated. In absence of the same, the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the proceedings. 7. The petitioners were served with the summons on 21/7/2010 and the petitioners have filed the Written Statement along with an application for setting aside ‘ No W.S. ’ order on 21/4/2011. It can not be said that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners to file 4 WP 3929.2011 - [ J ] Written Statement. The dispute pertains to an immovable property. 8. In that light of the matter, when the Written Statement is already filed, the Court should have allowed the application. 9. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ‘ B ’. 10. Taking into account the nature of dispute, the trial court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and the present petitioner shall also co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the Suit. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3929......2011- [ J ]