1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1314 OF 2010. Laxman Pralhad Somkuwar -: versus :- Nagpur Improvement Trust and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MAY 05, 2010. Heard Shri M.M. Papinwar, learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, Shri R.O. Chhabra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri N.M. Katkoriya, holding for Shri H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to order dated 08.02.2010 passed below Exh.36 in Regular Civil Suit No. 873/2008 by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur. The said Court has by said order allowed the application of respondent and has accepted its Written statement on record by imposing cost of Rs. 500/-. Shri Papinwar, learned counsel has pointed out that the respondent was served with suit summons on 08.09.2008 itself and thereafter cyclostyled applications 2 were moved and time was taken to file written statement till 22.01.2009. He points out that about 8 to 9 such applications were moved, and though there were no just and sufficient reasons, time was granted. Ultimately on 06.04.2009 suit was proceeded without written statement. After this order, on 09.06.2009 respondent no.1 moved an application for permission to deposit cost of Rs. 100/- imposed vide order dated 22.01.2009 and sought leave to place written statement on record. Learned counsel has relied upon several judgments to urge that when there is no extra ordinary or exceptional circumstances pointed out by respondent no.1, the written statement could not have been taken on record. Even the certified copies of various applications moved by respondent no.1 while seeking adjournments for filing written statement are shown to this Court. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 are opposing the petition. Shri Chhabra, learned counsel states that though cyclostyled applications were moved, the Court was satisfied and time till 06.04.2009 was given to respondent no.1 to file Written Statement. On that date, the Court proceeded without written statement and thereafter on 09.06.2009 leave was sought to deposit cost of Rs.100/- and permission to file written statement on record was also sought. He contends that the trial Court was satisfied with the reasons assigned and hence it has rightly accepted the written statement on record. He further argues that looking to the nature of the suit, written statement is must and in these circumstances 3 the Writ Petition should be dismissed. The suit is for ejectment and for vacant possession coupled with declaration and injunction. The fact show that respondent no.1 was served on 08.09.2009 and trial Court itself has granted adjournments upto 22.01.2009. These adjournments granted for filing written statement are not challenged. On 22.01.2009 time to file written statement was granted and costs of Rs.100/- were imposed. It appears that thereafter Court proceeded without written statement on 06.04.2009. On 09.06.2009 leave to deposit the said costs and for taking written statement on record was moved by respondent no.1. The trial Court has considered the facts, and it found that the application for taking written statement on record by recalling the order of no written statement was filed within two months of 06.04.2009 and suit was still at preliminary stage. As it further found that the reasons given by respondent no.1 were reasonable, it has taken written statement on record and compensated the petitioner by directing the respondent to pay costs of Rs. 500/-. It is no doubt true that various judgments on which Shri Papinwar, learned counsel has placed reliance contemplate extra ordinary and exceptional circumstances if written statement is to be taken on record after 90 days. Here, considering the fact that the trial Court itself has granted adjournments beyond expiry of said period of 90 days and that grant was never questioned, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus dismissed. No costs. 4 The proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 873/2008 are however, expedited and the said Court shall attempt to decide the suit as early as possible and in any case by 31.03.2011. JUDGE Rgd.