k 1/4 905 wp 11637.16 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11637 OF 2016 M/s. Wateridge An Association of Persons & Ors. ....Petitioners V/S Ramchandra H. Pujari & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Purushottam G. Chavan for the Petitioners. Mr. Mihir Raje (through VC) for Respondents. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 4 DECEMBER 2025. P.C.: 1. The Petition challenges orders dated 28 August 2015, 29 October 2015 and 9 March 2016 passed by the Trial Court directing that the Suit shall proceed without Written Statement of Defendants and rejecting the Application preferred by the Defendants for seeking permission to file Written Statement. 2. I have heard Mr. Dani, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for Petitioner and Mr. Raje, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent/original Plaintiff. 3. It appears that in a Suit filed on 25 November 2014 seeking to restrain the Petitioner-Developer from collecting maintenance charges in respect of the flats, Defendants made an appearance on 30 katkam Page No. 1 of 4 k 2/4 905 wp 11637.16 as.doc December 2014 and filed two Applications for supply of copies of documents and seeking time to file Written Statement. Another Application dated 18 December 2015 was filed once again seeking supply of copies of documents. Since Written Statement was not filed for substantial time, Plaintiff filed Application on 4 August 2015 for the Suit to proceed without Written Statement of Defendants. Accordingly, the Trial Court proceeded to pass order dated 28 August 2015 directing that the Suit shall proceed without Written Statement of the Defendants. The Trial Court refused to believe the story of the Defendants that they were not supplied copies of documents filed alongwith the Plaint. The Court relied upon Bailiff’s report indicating that all the documents accompanying the Plaint were already served on the Defendants. 4. The Defendants filed Application for setting aside “no Written Statement” order dated 28 August 2015. However, their Application at Exhibit-22 was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 29 October 2015 observing that Defendants had not filed any document alongwith their Written Statement and the plea raised by them about non- availability of any documents for Written Statement was disbelieved. Defendants applied for review of order dated 29 October 2015 by filing Application at Exhibit-27 which has been rejected by order dated 9 March 2016. 5. Considering the above position, it undoubtedly appears that Defendants have been negligent in defending the Suit. The reason for non-filing of Written Statement within permissible time is not katkam Page No. 2 of 4 k 3/4 905 wp 11637.16 as.doc justiciable. However, at the same time, it is the settled position of law that time limit prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) is not mandatory in nature and the same is merely directory. Also, proceedings of the Suit have been stayed during pendency of the present Petition which continues to remain pending before this Court for last nine long years. Considering the above position, it would be appropriate to permit Defendants to file Written Statement so that the Suit can be decided on merits. The consequences of non-filing of Written Statement in a Suit is disastrous. Therefore, instead of the Suit getting decided in absence of any defence by the Defendants, it could be appropriate to have their defence on record. For this negligent conduct, appropriate costs can be imposed on them. 6. Consequently, I proceed to pass the following order: i) Orders dated 28 August 2015, 29 October 2015 and 9 March 2016 are set aside. ii) Defendants are permitted to file their Written Statements within a period of four weeks. iii) Defendants to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Plaintiffs. The amount of costs shall be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of four weeks. Plaintiffs can withdraw the deposited costs. Deposit of costs within stipulated time shall be condition precedent for taking Written Statement of Defendants on record. katkam Page No. 3 of 4 k 4/4 905 wp 11637.16 as.doc 7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 4 of 4 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2025.12.08 14:47:12 +0530