1 902.wp-5038-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 5038 OF 2011. M/s. United Paper Company & Anr. ..Petitioners. vs. Viren Panachand Vora & Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Jayesh Bhatt, for Petitioners. Ms. Hetal Patel, for Respondent No.1. .... CORAM : G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATE : 24TH AUGUST 2011. P.C. : In this Petition, the following order was passed on 16th August 2011 :- “1. Heard Ms. Talathi, h/f. Mr. Jayesh Bhatt, Advocate for Petitioners and Ms. Hetal Patel, Advocate for Respondent No.1. 2. The Petition challenges Judgment and Order dated 19/1/2011 passed by the learned Judge of Court of Small Causes presiding in C.R. No. 8 below Exh. 33 in L.D. Suit No. 219 o 2008 thereby rejecting the said Application filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for condoning the delay in filing Written Statement on the ground that they were offered inspection on 26/2/2009. Hearing was adjourned to 16/3/2009 and the Written Statement was verified on 13/3/2009. 3. At the request of Ms. Hetal Patel, Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.1 who is the original Plaintiff in the Suit, hearing of the Writ petition is adjourned till 24th August, 2011. The parties are put to notice that the Petition may be disposed off without notice to the Respondent No.2 who is Defendant No.3 in the Suit. The parties are also directed to place on record copy of the 2 902.wp-5038-11 Judgment and Order dated 23/3/2011 passed by the Justice V.M. Kanade in W.P. No. 2103/2011 on the record of this Petition.” 2. Ms. Patel appears for Respondent No.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing with the consent of Advocate for the Petitioner and Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Service of Rule on Respondent No.2, who is the original Defendant No. 3, is not necessary since the Respondent No.1, the original Plaintiff is the contesting Respondent. After hearing the Advocates for some time, by consent of the Advocate for the Petitioners and Respondent No. 1, the impugned Judgment and order dated 19th January 2011 passed by the learned Judge of the Court of the Small Causes presiding in C.R. No. 8 below Exhibit- 33 in Civil Suit No. 219 of 2008 is quashed and set aside, Application Exhibit-33 is allowed and the written statement of the Petitioners is directed to be taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority. Costs to be paid within two weeks from today. If costs are not paid, the impugned order will stand revived and the Writ Petition to stand dismissed. The Respondent No.1 is present in Court and has given instructions to his Advocate to consent for passing of the aforesaid order. The cost of Rs.2,000/- have been paid to the Respondent No.1 through his Advocate in the Court. Hence, that compliance is recorded. [ G.S. GODBOLE, J. ]