SM 1 59.wp.6560.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6560 OF 2011 Motilal Sarjuprasad Jaiswal ....Petitioner. Versus Hiralal Sarjuprasad Jaiswal, (Deceased through LRs.) Sandhya Hiralal Jaiswal and others ....Respondents. ____________ Mr. Ajay S. Patil for the Petitioner. Ms. Sunita Sonawane for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2011. P.C.: Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 25th April, 2011, by which order, the Trial Court, i.e.,City Civil Judge, Dindoshi, Mumbai has refused to take on record the Written Statement proposed to be filed on behalf of the defendant. The Roznama discloses that, by order dated 24th January, 2011, Notice of Motion No. 2982 of 2007 came to be allowed and the ex- parte decree against the petitioner, i.e., the defendant dated 4th September, 2006 came to be set aside and it was directed that the defendant should file his Written Statement on or before the next date. The next date was 17th February, 2011. The defendant had SM 2 59.wp.6560.11 kept his Written Statement ready on 10th February, 2011 as the same can be seen from from the paper book and the docket of the said Written Statement. On 17th February, 2011, the board of the said Court was discharged as the Court was busy with some other matter. Thereafter, the matter appeared on board on 25th March, 2011, when the Court was not sitting and therefore, the Written Statement could not be filed. Thereafter, on 25th April, 2011, the Court refused to take the Written Statement of the defendant on record. As can be seen from the Roznama, by order dated 24th January, 2011, the Court had directed the defendant to file his Written Statement on the next date. As mentioned hereinabove, the Written Statement is dated 10th February, 2011. Hence, the defendant had kept the Written Statement ready well in time for being filed on 17th February, 2011, which was the next date. However, the board was discharged, the same could not be filed, as also on the subsequent dates. 3. In my view, therefore, it would be just and proper to set aside the order dated 25th April, 2011 for refusing to accept the said Written Statement of the defendant. It is well settled, that for just and proper reasons the time to file the Written Statement can be extended as Order VIII rule 1 is held to be directory and not mandatory. SM 3 59.wp.6560.11 4. In that view of the matter, the above petition is required to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The Trial Court to accept the Written Statement filed by the defendant and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)