1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3385 OF 2009 Chhagan Dhondiba Yelpale .. Petitioner Versus Manjusha Mahadeo Mane & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sandeep Koragave i/by Mr.V.S.Talkute for the petitioner. Mr.A.A.Joshi for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12 th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the 1 st respondent. Taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. The 1 st respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioner is the 1 st defendant. On service of summons, the petitioner entered appearance in the suit through his advocate on 07 th July 2007. On 21 st July, 6 th August, 29 th August and on 18 th September 2007 time was granted by the trial Court to the petitioner to file written statement. On 04 th October 2007, the application made by the petitioner for grant of further time was rejected by the trial Court and an order was passed on the very day directing that the suit will proceed without written statement as against the petitioner. On 01 st December 2007 an application was made by the 2 petitioner for setting aside the said order and for taking written statement on record. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 2. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent by pointing out that the sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file written statement and in any case existence of exceptional ground was not made out by the petitioner. 3. It is true that from 07 th July 2007 onwards time was granted by the trial Court to the petitioner. On 04 th October 2007 time to file written statement was not extended by the trial Court. Alongwith the application at Exhibit 35, on 01 st December 2007, the petitioner tendered his written statement. The ground of delay as set out is that the relevant documents and information required for drafting the written statement was not available in time. 4. Perusal of the roznama shows that there was an intention on the part of the petitioner to defend the suit filed by the 1 st respondent. The occasion for filing application on which impugned order was passed arose as on 04 th October 2007, the learned trial Judge did not grant even few days time to the petitioner to 3 file written statement. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the petition deserves to be granted with permission to file written statement subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs.2,500/-. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 22 nd August 2008 is quashed and set aside and the application at Exhibit 35 filed by the petitioner is allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 2,500/- to the 1 st respondent within a period of six weeks from today. Payment of costs will be condition precedent. (b) The petition is allowed in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)