Renuka 7-WP-9292-2016.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9292 OF 2016 Zorar Ahmed Faiyaz Ahmed ...Petitioner V/s. Shri Shaikh Mohamed Shabbir and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Jamshed Ansari with Mr. Rohit Upadhyay with Mr. Riyaz Khan for Petitioner. Mr. Santosh Mali for Respondent No.2 to 5/BMC. Mr. Mohamed Shabbir Shaikh for Respondent in person. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 21 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petition challenges order dated 18 November 2015 passed by the learned Judge City civil Court dismissing Notice of Motion No. 3645 of 2013. The Motion was filed for treating reply dated 3 March 2014 filed to oppose Notice of Motion for temporary injunction as the written statement of Defendant No. 6. 2) I have heard Mr. Ansari, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Mali, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Shaikh, the Respondent appearing in person and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. Page No. 1 of 3 21 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:34746 Renuka 7-WP-9292-2016.docx 3) The suit summons was served on Defendant No. 6 on 20 April 2012. It appears that Plaintiff was pressing prayers for temporary injunction in a Notice of Motion filed for that purpose. Defendant No. 6 therefore filed reply opposing Notice of Motion for temporary injunction instead of filing a written statement. 4) It is the case of Defendant No. 6 that in the reply so filed, the entire case of the Plaintiff in the plaint has already been dealt with. Accordingly, a prayer was made before the Trial Court to treat the reply to the motion as the written statement. Ordinarily, there would have been no qualms in acceptance of such prayer. The only difficulty, however, is that even reply opposing Motion for temporary injunction was not filed within time permitted under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code). The suit summons was served on 20 April 2012, whereas the reply opposing motion for temporary injunction was filed on 3 March 2014. 5) The Apex Court has held in Kailash V/s Nanhku and Ors. 1 in provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code are directory in nature and not mandatory. In an appropriate case, the Court is invested with power to condone the delay in filing of written statement in a Suit which is not registered as a Commercial Suit. In the present case, there appears to be some delay in filing reply to the Motion. However, it appears that the suit is still pending at the stage of framing of the issues. Though the impugned order was passed on 18 November 2015, not much has progressed in terms of trial of the Suit during last 11 long years. In my 1 2005 (4) SCC 480 Page No. 2 of 3 21 August 2026 Renuka 7-WP-9292-2016.docx view, therefore, prayer of the Petitioner/Defendant No. 6 for treatment of reply opposing Notice of Motion can be treated as written statement filed in the Suit. However, since the Petitioner is found negligent in not filing written statement within time, costs are required to be imposed on the Petitioner. 6) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:- (i) Order dated 18 November 2015 passed by the City Civil Court is set aside. (ii) Reply filed by the Petitioner opposing Notice of Motion for temporary injunction shall be treated as written statement of Defendant No. 6. (iii) Petitioner/Defendant No. 6 shall pay to the Plaintiff cost of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of four weeks. (iv) Payment of cost shall be condition precedent for treating the reply as written statement. 7) With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of with costs as directed above. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 21 August 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/08/2026 15:27:24