[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7819 OF 2008 Ramesh Indrabhan Chhajed .... Petitioner Vs. Smt. Savita Chetan Irani Ors. .... Respondents Shri R.D. Soni i/b M/s. Ram & Co. for the Petitioner. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 16-7-2008 whereby the Court below after considering the case of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 permitted them to file the written statement. There is delay of about nine months. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. M/s. M/s. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Bombay Swadeshi Stores Ltd. & Ors., & Ors., & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1574, and strongly relied upon para 44, quoted in para 7 of the said decision. The said para 44 is reproduced hereinbelow: "44. The extension of time shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing, howsoever [2] brief they may be, by the court. In no case, shall the defendant be permitted to seek extension of time when the court is satisfied that it is a case of laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel. The court may impose costs for dual purpose: (i) to deter the defendant from seeking any extension of time just for the asking, and (ii) to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused to him." 3. The principle as laid down cannot be a matter of discussion. However, in the present case, the suit is for specific performance of contract. The presence of the defendants is very essential for proper adjudication of the issue. It is in the interest of both the parties that full opportunity should be given to both so that the litigation can attain finality at the earliest point of time. The delay of about nine months just cannot be a reason to deny the defendant Nos.1 and 2 the opportunity to contest the proceedings if a case is made out. 4. The non-availability of the documents and the old age are also the additional factors which cannot be [3] over-looked. It is always desirable that the party who has filed pleadings must rely upon the documents and the materials to support the same. Any defence or pleading filed without documentary support ultimately affects the party. Therefore, taking all these into account and in the interest of justice and to give full opportunity to the defendants, I am inclined to maintain the order. 5. The Court below has rightly considered the aspect of compensation to the plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused as observed by the Apex Court in M/s. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd M/s. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd M/s. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd (supra). Therefore, I see that there is no reason to interfere with the said interlocutory order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp7819.8 sjs/D8wp7819.8 sjs/D8wp7819.8