wp118.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 118 OF 2010 Shekhar Raghunath Manohar ....Petitioner Vs. Smt. Madhavi Madhukar Jadhav ....Respondent. Mr. R.S. Datar for the Petitioner. Mr. T.D. Deshmukh with Mr. J.B. Panke for the Respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 31st March, 2010. P.C.:- Heard finally. 1 The Petitioner’s Special Civil Suit No.406 of 2003 against the Respondent for specific performance of Agreement for Sale dated 8th September, 2000, executed in favour of the Petitioner in question, where the Respondent who is the Plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 543 of 2004, which was disposed of on 31st July, 2008, filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement and for setting aside no W.S. order. The same was opposed by the Petitioner. However, by the impugned order dated 26th August, 2009, the learned Judge granted/ allowed the said application and permitted to file Written Statement in the Present Suit. 2 Admittedly, the Respondent is the original Defendant in the present suit; the Respondent is Plaintiff in the subsequent suit, where the Court has granted decree on 31st July, 2008 declaring that the agreement is null and void. The Appeal against the same is pending. The Petitioner brought on record the evidence laid in the subsequent suit to be as the evidence in the wp118.10 2 present suit also and the matter is pending for arguments, as the parties have adopted the evidence of the second suit. In this background, in my view, to avoid further complications and in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the first Suit itself and as the parties have consented/adopted the evidence made in the other suit and as the pleadings, as well as, the defence so raised are known to the parties, I see, there is no reason in view of this peculiar facts and circumstances to interfere with the order already passed, allowing to file the written statement. 3 The submission with regard to the delay and/or latches has some force, but considering the fact that both the parties contested the second suit filed by the Respondent, when the agreement in question and the property are common and same, and ultimately the said suit is also disposed of; the first suit filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff, is still pending and again revolving around the same agreement/ property between the parties, the theory of non-filing of written statement inadvertently and even non- filing of written statement as referred above, and as noted by the Trial Court, and considering the averments made in the Application for condonation delay, in my view, just cannot be said to be perverse or bad in law. The discretion so exercised, and permitted to file written statement, in the interest of justice, need no interference. 4 The Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)