*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5081/2009 Kantabai Ankush Matkar and others. ..Petitioners ­VERSUS­ Chabutai Vasantrao Pachagane and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Vinod Wagh, Advocate i/b Mr.Shrikant Yadav, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate for the Respondents Nos.1 and 2. ............... CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. Dated 23rd November, 2009. PC:­ 1 The Petitioners are the original Plaintiffs who are claiming to have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. The property involved is a valuable immovable property. After service of summons, the Defendants did not file the Written Statement within time and hence, No W.S. order came to be passed. The Defendants moved an application for setting aside the No W.S. Order and sought permission to file the Written Statement. The permission was granted by the order dated 18.02.2009 to file the Written Statement subject to payment of cost of Rs.250/­ before the next date. However, on the next date, when the Defendants were supposed to deposit the cost in the Court, the Defendant No.1 who is widow reached the Court late i.e. at 3:30 pm as she was ill. *2* Hence, on account of failure on the part of the Defendants to pay the costs, the Court passed the order for proceeding with the matter without Written Statement. On that very day, an application was moved explaining the reasons for the Defendant No.1 to reach late in the Court and review of the earlier order was sought. The Trial Court being of the view that ends of justice would be met by permitting the Defendants to file the Written Statement and hence, permitted filing of the Written Statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/­. It is this order which is challenged by the Petitioners before this Court. 2 The subject matter of the suit is valuable immovable property. It would be in the interest of justice to have adjudication of the dispute on merit, more so, the Plaintiffs are claiming the right in the property based on the adverse possession. In the result, the impugned order is just and fair and it does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. (A.P. Deshpande, J)