-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8215 OF 2006 Pune District Central Co-op. Bank Limited ...Petitioner versus Sunil Baburao Shegaonkar and others ... Respondents Mr. V.B. Tapkir for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. More for respondent No.6. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2008. P.C. On 16th January, 2007, the learned single Judge passed the following order:- “Issue fresh notice, returnable on 12th February, 2007. Notice to state that the petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage.” 2. As per the office endorsement, all the respondents are served. The matter now is to be disposed of finally at this stage. 3. The petitioner herein is the original defendant No.2 of Regular Civil Suit No. 11 of 2006. The said suit is pending before the Civil Judge, -2- Junior Division, Akurdi, Pune. The aforesaid suit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein against the petitioner as well as respondent No.6-Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, Pimpri, Pune. In the aforesaid suit, the challenge is to the resolution of the Standing Committee of respondent No.6 herein, who is original defendant No.1 in the suit. There is also a challenge to the lease agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.6 herein dated 25th October, 2004 and other consequential reliefs have also been prayed for in the said suit. In the aforesaid suit, an interim injunction application was also preferred. The petitioner-original defendant No.2, gave a reply to the injunction application and as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the averments in the reply to that application as well as in the written statement are practically similar. However, at the relevant time since there was no written statement filed on behalf of the present petitioner, the petitioner submitted an application in the aforesaid suit at Exh. 37. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner had filed an application for framing preliminary issue, the petitioner had not filed written statement as at the relevant time the injunction application as well as the application submitted by the petitioner was pending. In the meanwhile, since period of 90 days was over, the petitioner filed an application on 9th June, 2006 seeking time to file the written statement. The written statement was filed on 20th June, 2006. However, in the meantime, the petitioner came to know that on 20th June, 2006, no written statement order was already passed. The petitioner, therefore, gave -3- an application for setting aside that order with a prayer that the petitioner be given permission to file the written statement. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware about passing of the order of “no written statement”. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a financial institution and that the representative of the Bank was looking after the matter and since the said representative was transferred and when a new representative was appointed to look into the matter, he immediately filed the written statement on 20th June, 2006. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application on 30th June, 2006, with a request that delay in filing the written statement be condoned and the written statement be taken on record. The trial Court, however, rejected the said application at Exh. 37 which has resulted into filing of this petition. 4. As stated earlier, the petition is ordered to be disposed of finally at the admission stage. None appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. More, learned counsel appears for Respondent No.6. It is submitted by him that since respondent No.6 is one of the co-defendants in the suit, he has no objection in granting the application preferred by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the learned trial judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in law in an appropriate manner. It is further submitted that when reply to injunction application has been filed, the written statement of the petitioner is on the -4- same lines and since the said applications were pending, the petitioner did not file the written statement at an earlier date. In the meanwhile defendant No.1 came to know that the right of filing written statement was closed and, therefore, they have moved an application for taking the written statement on record. Under these circumstances, the trial Court should have taken a liberal view of the matter by condoning the delay and taking the written statement on record. It is also submitted that in order to do substantial justice, the trial Court should have permitted the petitioner to file written statement, as no prejudice would be caused, if the written statement is taken on record. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.6. This petition is not opposed by the real contesting party i.e. Original plaintiffs, though served. It is required to be noted that when defendant No.1 has already filed reply to interim injunction application, it cannot be said that defendant No.1 was not interested in defending the present proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the delay was hardly of three months and it has occurred because of the fact that other interim applications were pending for adjudication. In my view, the learned trial Judge should have permitted the petitioner to file the written statement as the petitioner in its application has already made out a case for condoning the delay and taking the written statement on record. It is no doubt true that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the -5- written statement, but considering the fact that reply to Exh.5 i.e. Interim application has been filed and since the said proceedings were going on and in the meanwhile 90 days period for filing the written statement was over is no ground for not condoning the delay in permitting the petitioner to file the written statement and taking the same on record. The learned Judge has clearly erred in holding that no sufficient cause was made out for taking the written statement on record. It is required to e noted that the written statement of defendant No.1 is already on record and the allegation in the suit to that extent is common against defendant Nos.1 and 2. In the interest of justice, the trial Court should have allowed the written statement to be taken on record. The learned trial Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in an appropriate manner. Under the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to file the written statement in the trial Court. The written statement which is already submitted by the petitioner now be taken on record. The application submitted by the petitioner at Exh. 37 in the suit stands allowed. The trial Judge thereafter shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. Writ be issued to the trial Court forthwith. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.