-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 388 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 3498 OF 2005 M/s. Laxmi Avenue Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Versus M/s. Laxmi Builders and Developers & Anr. ..Defendants. Mr. D. S. Chandnani for the plaintiff. Mr. H. C. Pimple i/b Mr. S. H. Ujjainwala for defendant no.2. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : February 23, 2010. P. C. : 1. This notice of motion is taken out by defendant no.2 – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for permission to file written statement. Notice of motion is opposed by the plaintiff. In paragraph no.3 of affidavit- in-support of notice of motion defendant no.2 has averred that due to inadvertence the papers of the present suit were misplaced with the other papers and same were not traceable after diligent search and therefore written statement could not be filed within stipulated time. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff while opposing the notice of motion relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Chintaman Sukhdeo Kaklij & Others v/s. Shivaji Bhausaheb Gadhe & Others [2004(5) BCR 573], especially upon paragraph nos. 28 & 29 of the said judgment. -: 2 :- 3. In my view, the ground stated in paragraph no.3 of his affidavit brings the case of defendant no.2 in the category of exceptional cases as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Chintaman’s case (supra). Notice of motion therefore deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b). Office shall accept the written statement of defendant no.2 if tendered within the period of one week from today. (R.V. MORE, J.)