-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.433 of 2008 1. Smt.Annapurana M.Mehta and another ..Petitioners vs. Mr.Joe Joseph ..Respondent Shri P.B.Anand for petitioners. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 4th February, 2008 4th February, 2008 4th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioners are original defendant nos.1 and 2 to the R.A.E.Suit No.1670 of 2001 filed by the respondent/original plaintiff. 2. The respondent/original plaintiff applied for amendment to the plaint which was allowed on 19th December, 2006. The amendment was carried out on 22nd December, 2006. The amendment, inter alia, was for impleadment of petitioner no.2 as defendant no.2. Since the plaint was amended and amended writ of summons was served on the newly added party which was received just few days prior to the date stipulated in the summons for attendance, on that date both the petitioners requested for time to file their amended/additional written statement and the -2- written statement. It appears that thereafter the written statement was prepared and when the parties desired that the same should be tendered in Court, the presiding officer was on leave. However, notices were forwarded to the respondent/original plaintiff who has duly acknowledged the same. The matter was adjourned on 9th February, 2007 to 6th March, 2007 and though the written statement was ready all that could not be done is to file it in Court as the Presiding Officer was on leave. Whatever may be the course open, the request of the petitioner was before the Trial Court to take the written statement on file. In the peculiar facts of this case when the joinder of the petitioners was in2006 and that the amended pleas required filing of the additional written statement, the Trial Court would have well advised to take the written statement on file and if necessary by imposing costs on the respondent/plaintiff. This is not a case where the amendment application having been allowed there is enormous or unexplained delay so also complete inaction or lack of bonafides. Therefore, discretion could have been exercised in favour of the petitioners by the Trial Court. -3- 3. That having not been done, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the written statement of the petitioner/original defendant is taken on file subject to their paying costs quantified at Rs.2000/- to the respondent/original plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today. Petition is allowed accordingly. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)