1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5282 OF 2009 Ravindra Keda Deore & Ors ...Petitioners vs. Vishvas Laxman Nikam ...Respondent Mr.M.N.Sandhyanshiv for the petitioners Mr.S.K.Shinde for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 6, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed by the respondents. An order was passed by the trial court on 1st January 2009 in the suit filed by the respondent directing that the suit will proceed without written statement of the petitioners. On 2nd March 2009, an application was made by the petitioners for setting aside the said order. By the impugned order dated 25th march 2009, the said application has been rejected. Notice for final disposal has been issued. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was more than sufficient explanation in the application at Exhibit 24 for the delay in filing the written statement. He submitted that considering the grounds set out in the said application, the same ought to have been allowed. The learned counsel for the 2 respondent opposed the petition by stating that there is no sufficient explanation for long delay. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. It must be stated here that the application at Exhibit 24 has been filed only by the first petitioner who is the first defendant. The first petitioner entered appearance in the suit on 23rd September 2008 and on 1st January 2009, the trial court passed order directing that the suit will proceed without written statement of the petitioner. In the application at Exhibit 24 it is stated that there were talks of settlement between the respondent and the first petitioner. In the second paragraph, it is stated that the settlement talks made some progress and in fact, the settlement was at a final stage. The said application was filed on 2nd March 2009. Though the said application was opposed by the respondent, the grounds set out in the said application could not have been ignored. The order impugned is very cryptic which does not deal with the grounds incorporated in the application at Exhibit 24. Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 has been held to be directory. However, for extending the time provided under the said rule, exceptional reasons/circumstances are required to be set out. As the impugned order is cryptic, in a normal course, this court would have sent back the matter to the trial court. However, that will further delay the 3 proceedings of the suit filed by the respondent. Moreover, a ground has been made out in the application filed by the first petitioner for setting aside the order. In fact the written statement has been tendered along with the said application. A sum of Rs.5,000/- has been deposited by the petitioners in this court by way of costs payable to the respondent. Therefore, no purpose will be served by passing an order of remand. 4 In the circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 25th March 2009 is quashed and set aside and the application at Exhibit 24 is hereby allowed. ii)The respondent is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,000/- deposited by the petitioners in this court. iii)Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE