1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7318 OF 2008 Swami Samarth Developers through its proprietor, Shri Arun Raghu Thigale ...Petitioner vs. Rohini Balasaheb Mashere ...Respondent Mr.Vilas Tapkir for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Kulkarni for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 14, 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. The Advocate for the respondent waives service. There is already an order passed by this court for final disposal at admission stage. The petitioner is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. In a suit filed by the respondent, an order was passed by the trial court directing that the suit will proceed without the written statement of the petitioner. The said order was passed on 18th April 2008. On 3rd July 2008, an application was made by the petitioner for setting aside the said order and for taking the written statement on record. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by holding that no case was made out for grant of extension of time provided under the law to file the written statement and the time expired on 1st May 2002. 2 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the application made by the petitioner it was pointed out that as the relevant documents were not available in time, the written statement could not be filed. He submitted that considering the nature of the suit filed by the respondent, the drafting of the written statement is bound to take time and therefore the trial court ought to have granted time to file written statement. 3 The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition by pointing out that no case of existence of extraordinary circumstances was made out by the petitioner and therefore, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order. 4 I have considered the submissions. When the application was made on 3rd July 2009, the written statement was ready and was tendered along with the said application. The reasons for delay have been set out in the application. In reply filed by the respondent, no dispute was raised as regards reasons for delay set out in the application, but it was contended that on three occasions, time was granted to file the written statement. It is pointed out in the reply that the petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.100/- but the said order was not complied with. It was further submitted in the reply that if the trial court finds it appropriate, the application may be allowed subject to 3 costs of Rs.1000/-. Thus, in the reply, the respondent did not contest the genuiness of the grounds stated in the application. Considering these peculiar fact, the trial court ought to have allowed the application. However, the respondent will have to be compensated as not only that the suit was delayed but the respondent was required to appear in this court by engaging an Advocate. Therefore, the amount of costs is quantified of Rs.7500/-. 5 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 18th August 2008 is quashed and set aside. ii)The application made by the petitioner at Exh.42 is allowed subject to condition of the petitioner paying costs of Rs.7,500/- to the respondent within a period of six weeks from today. iii)The deposit of the amount with the trial court within the time stipulated will be treated as sufficient compliance. Payment of costs will be a condition precedent. If the amount of costs is not deposited within stipulated time, impugned order will stand. iv)Rule is made absolute in above terms. JUDGE