1 of 3 61-WP.4011.2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 61 WRIT PETITION NO. 4011 OF 2020 MURLIDHAR PANNALAL BHUTADA VERSUS AAKRUR FAKIRRAO NAVALE AND OTHERS ... Mr. Ajinkya Joshi h/f. Mr. Sharad V. Natu, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Shriram V. Deshmukh h/f. Mr. Devang R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present petition, the Petitioner assails the order dated 30.12.2019 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Georai in Regular Civil Suit No.594 of 2017, whereby the learned Trial Court observed that no written statement was filed and, therefore, proceeded with the matter further. 3. In fact, on the said date, Petitioner/Defendant No.3 had already filed an application seeking time to file an additional written statement. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application by treating the case as if no written statement was on record. The record reveals that the written statement had already been filed earlier. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court permitted 2026:BHC-AUG:3557 2 of 3 61-WP.4011.2020 Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Original Plaintiffs to amend the plaint and, therefore, the Petitioner/Defendant No.3 had a right to file a consequential written statement. As the application did not specifically mention the same, the learned Trial Court rejected it and proceeded with the suit ex-parte. 4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the rejection of the application on such a technical ground is unsustainable and, therefore, prays that the petition be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 strongly opposed the petition by submitting that no additional written statement was filed and that the suit is of the year 2017. It is submitted that the application was filed only to delay the proceedings. 6. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, it is evident that the written statement was already on record. The only issue was with regard to permitting Petitioner/Defendant No.3 to file an additional written statement pursuant to the amendment of the plaint. 7. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 30.12.2019 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Georai in Regular 3 of 3 61-WP.4011.2020 Civil Suit No.594 of 2017. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 9. The order dated 30.12.2019 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Georai in Regular Civil Suit No.594 of 2017, whereby the learned Trial Court directed the suit to proceed without the written statement, is hereby quashed and set aside. The Petitioner/Defendant No.3 is granted liberty to file an additional written statement within a period of four weeks from today. 10. Both the learned Advocates submit that the suit is of the year 2017. Therefore, this Court directs the Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously. 11. Regular Civil Suit No.594 of 2017 shall be decided within a period of one year from today. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef