1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 14/2008 M/s. Falari Constructions, represented by its sole Proprietor Shri Hari N. Falari, 111, Dattawadi, Mapusa. ....... Petitioner. V/s. 1. Mrs. Maria Aurea M.C.D. Gama Souza Pinto R/o. Ground Floor, Dona Alice Building, Kerant, Caranzalem, 2.(a) Mr. Augusto Brian Charled Pinto and his wife; 2.(b) Mrs. Judy Godinho Pinto, Both resident of 9, Pearl Croft, Guru Nanak road, Bandra W-Mumbai. 3.(a) Mrs. Maria Silvia Adelaide Pinto Dias and her husband 3.(b) Shri Regenald Dias, Both resident of 12/1237, Peace Oasis, St. Joaquim Road, Borda, P.O. Fatorda, Margao-Goa. 4.(a) Mr. Cyril Allan Socorro Pinto And his wife. 4.(b) Mrs. Claris Pinto, Both resident of 8-G2, Siddharth Apartments, Opp. Raikar Hospital Tonca-Caranzalem-Goa 5.(a) Mr. Basil Edwin Martin Pinto, and his wife 5.(b) Mrs. Maria Angelina Lolita Fernandes, Pinto, both resident of Belarmino Apartments, 3rd Floor, Gaunsa Waddo, Mapusa, Goa. .......... Respondents. 2 Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Menezes, Advcoate for the respondents. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 25th April, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner by this petition, prays for setting aside of the order, refusing to take written statement of the petitioner-defendant on record. The written statement was delayed in filing by about 146 days beyond the period of 90 days prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Mr. Menezes for the respondent vehemently objects on the ground that the petitioner-defendant did not take any steps for filing the written statement after they were served on 24.7.06. Mr. Thali, however, points out that the petitioner was served on 24.7.06. Immediately after 2 days, the sons of the petitioner who are defendants No.2 and 3 had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. That application was granted on 23.2.07. However, the plaint was rejected only in respect of his sons. Mr. Thali, nonetheless, submits that the petitioner was given to understand by their Advocate that a decision on the application under Order 3 7, Rule 11 would benefit all the parties and that the parties can file a written statement in case that application was rejected. The petitioner, therefore, went by that advice and did not file written statement then, but filed it on 13.4.07 on being advised to do so, after the application under Order 7, Rule 11 was rejected. 4. It is true, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Menezes, that strictly speaking the petitioner need not have waited for the decision in the matter of application under Order 7, Rule 11, because he had not filed the application and, in any case, the application sought rejection of the plaint only against the applicants therein. However, it is quite possible and indeed probable that the applicant was advised as claimed by them. In fact, it would be reasonable to assume that the petitioner would not have been willing to forgo their right to defend the suit. 5. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to allow this petition and direct that the written statement be taken on record, subject to the petitioner paying costs. On record, Mr. Thali makes a statement on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would pay costs of Rs.10,000/-. That statement is accepted. Rule made absolute accordingly. The written statement shall be taken on record, 4 upon proof of payment of costs. S.A. BOBDE, J. ssm.