1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLN. NO. 823 OF 2009 Shivashakti B.Rahivasi Sangh .. Petitioners Vs. M/s. Skyline Construction Co. & Ors. Respondents Mr.M.P.Vashi, i/b. M/s. M.P.Vashi & Associates,Advocates, for the petitioners. Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar i/b. Mr. Jagdish G.Aradwad,Advocate, for the respondent No.3.. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 18th March , 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The respondents/defendants did not file the written statement within the specified period and thereafter moved a Notice of Motion to allow them to file written statement. For the reasons given in the application, after hearing the parties, the trial Court found that there are sufficient reasons to allow the defendant No.1 to file the written statement and accordingly, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, written statement was allowed to be filed. That order is challenged in the present Revision by the plaintiffs. 2 3. Mr. Vashi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Kailash v. Nanhku and others AIR 2005 SC 2441. However, that authority in paras 31 and 41 clearly shows that inspite of the specific provisions in Rules 9 and 10 of Order VIII, the Court is not powerless to grant further time if justice so requires. 4. Taking into consideration the circumstances, I find no merit in the present Revision. Revision Application stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)