51-WP-3126-2015.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3126 OF 2015 Mitesh Chothani ...Petitioner Versus Garuda Carriers & Shipping Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent ____________________________________________________________ Mr. Rahul Sarda a/w. Ms. Divya Dave for the Petitioner. ____________________________________________________________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 4 DECEMBER 2025. P.C.: 1) The Petitioner challenges Order dated 18 February 2015, dismissing Notice of Motion No.3331 of 2014, rejecting the Application preferred by the Petitioner /Defendant for recall of no WS Order and for condonation of delay of 5 Years 7 Months and 8 Days in filing the Written Statement. 2) I have heard Mr. Rahul Sarda, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner. It appears that an appearance was put on behalf of the Respondent on 14 September 2016. However, thereafter none has appeared on behalf of the Respondent / Plaintiff. 3) It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that none has been appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff before the Trial Court S.S. Chavan Page No. 1 of 3 SHUBHA SADANAND CHAVAN Digitally signed by SHUBHA SADANAND CHAVAN Date: 2025.12.08 14:55:19 +0530 51-WP-3126-2015.doc as well. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff had also filed a private complaint against the Petitioner which has been dismissed for want of prosecution. Considering the above position, as also the nature of relief which is sought by the Petitioner / Defendant, it is not necessary to await appearance on behalf of the Respondent / Plaintiff any further. The Petition is pending for the last 10 long years and proceedings of the Suit are stayed. 4) No doubt, the delay on the part of Petitioner / Defendant in filing Written Statement is inordinate. However, at the same time, Plaintiff also appears to be not very diligent in prosecuting the Suit as well as defending the present Petition. 5) Defendant thus raised the plea of non-service of summons. This Court has stayed proceedings of the Suit for examining whether Defendant can be permitted to file written statement. In that view of the matter, Defendant can be permitted to file Written Statement by imposition of costs. 6) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to set aside the Impugned Order and to permit the Petitioner / Defendant to file Written Statement by imposition of cost. 7) Order dated 18 February 2015 is accordingly set aside. Petitioner / Defendant is permitted to file Written Statement S.S. Chavan Page No. 2 of 3 51-WP-3126-2015.doc within a period of 8 weeks, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. The amount of cost shall be deposited in the City Civil Court and the Plaintiff would be at liberty to withdraw the same. 8) The payment of cost within stipulated time shall be condition precedent, taking Written Statement of Petitioner / Defendant on record. 9) With the above direction, the Petition is allowed and disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) S.S. Chavan Page No. 3 of 3