1 Wp no.2140/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.2140 of 2010 Tangubai Shambhu Jangam & ors. ... Petitioners versus Vishnu Mahadev Jangam & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. V.S.Mali for the petitioner. Mr.S.G.Deshmukh i/b G.T.Kamchampurkar for respondents CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 21st July 2010 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents. Mr.Deshmukh waives service of the Rule for respondent nos.1 and 2 who are the original plaintiffs. Respondent nos.3 to 20 are the original defendants. Whole interests are not in conflict with that of the petitioner. Hence, service of Rule on respondent nos.3 to 20 is dispensed with. 2 Wp no.2140/10 3. Respondent nos.1 to 3 (original defendant nos.1 to 3) made an application for setting aside the “no W.S order” and for condonation of delay in filing of the written statement. That application was rejected. Hence they are before this court. 4. The writ of summons was served on the petitioner on 10 November 2008 and the period of 90 days provided under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing of the written statement was expired on 8 February 2009. The petitioner however, did not file the written statement within the maximum permissible period of 90 days. The Court therefore directed to proceed with the suit without their written statement. Petitioner thereafter tendered the written statement on 12 June 2009 along with an application for setting aside the “No W.S. order” and condonation of delay. That application was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the petitioners are illiterate ladies and they did not have the papers for defence and file the written statement. In view of peculiar facts of the case, the submission is accepted. Of course, the petitioners would be required to compensate the respondent nos.1 and 2 for the delay as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailash vs. Nanku, 2005(4) SCC 480. 6. For these reasons, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Written statement filed by the defendant be taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/­ as condition precedent. Costs of Rs.15,000/­ shall be deposited in the trial court within six weeks hereof. If costs are not deposited within six weeks, Rule shall 3 Wp no.2140/10 stand discharged and the writ petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the court. 6. Costs of Rs.5,000/­ deposited by the petitioner in this court are to be paid to the respondent nos.1 and 2 as costs of this petition. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)