IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.545 OF 2009 Patricia Farrell Ferandez ..Petitioner Vs. Commissioner of Mumbai and anr. ..Respondents Mr.M.S.Mhambrey, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.Kishor Jain i/b. M/s.Bina Rao & Co for respondent no.2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 22nd April, 2009. P.C. 1 An Application for taking written statement of the Bombay Municipal Corporation on record has been allowed by the trial Court and challenging that order this writ petition is filed. 2 The petitioner original plaintiff makes a grievance that the Application to file written statement was taken on record without any notice to the petitioner and/or his advocate and, therefore, a grave prejudice has been caused. 3 It is not in dispute that the suit has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2008 and an application for interim relief has been made therein which has been contested by filing affidavit-in-reply. Further, the petitioner states that the writ of summons was served on the Corporation on 4th July, 2008 and Issues were framed after perusing the application and written statement of Defendant no.2 Thereafter, matter was placed for recording evidence. In the meanwhile, without any notice and behind the back of the petitioner, an application was moved by the Corporation before the trial court for placing their written statement on record; and though the application was made beyond the period of 90 days, the Court has allowed said written statement to be taken on record. 4 I have perused the application that has been filed by the original first defendant – respondent no.1, in trial Court. Copy of application is annexed as Annexure “G” to this petition. The Corporation has pointed out that there is delay of two days in filing written statement, in as much as the Corporation being a party litigant in several suits and proceedings, on account of administrative exigencies, there was delay of two days. The learned Judge has perused that application. In my view, no prejudice is caused merely because this delay has been condoned. The delay has been condoned by perusing the application and cause shown therein, so also, in the public interest. 5 This is not a case where Writ Court should interfere as it is clear that substantial justice has been done. For all these reasons, this writ petition fails and dismissed. However, the cost awarded by the trial Court stands enhanced to Rs.1,500/-. The differential cost be paid within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. [ S.C.DHARMADHIKARI , J.] wp545-09