Sajid Ali vs Shakila Begum

B.S. Patil, J.—In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the 6th defendant-Union Bank of India to file written statement by condoning the delay.

The suit O.S. No. 218/2011 is filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Union Bank of India-respondent No 6 herein is arrayed as party defendant No. 6 in the suit. Defendant No. 6 did not file written statement within the time prescribed by law. He filed an application seeking condonation of delay and also for permission to file written statement. Application was resisted by the plaintiff. The Trial Court has allowed the application by imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/- on defendant No. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the delay of two years in filing the written statement has not been satisfactorily explained, the Trial Court has passed a cryptic order allowing the 6th defendant to file written statement.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on careful perusal of the pleadings and the impugned order, I find that the Trial Court has kept the ends of justice in mind and has exercised its discretion in allowing defendant No. 6 to file the written statement belatedly after condoning the delay by imposing costs of Rs. 1,000/-. It cannot be said that the order suffers from illegality or error of jurisdiction so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. As the Trial Court has kept the ends of justice in mind and has imposed costs to compensate the plaintiff for the delay in filing the written statement, I do not find it just and appropriate to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.