- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant holding that the order passed by the trial Court was discretionary one. The trial Court by its order dated 9.9.2005 granted permission to the respondents to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The said order was passed in Civil Suit No. 59/2005 by the Small Cause Judge, Pune.
(3.)Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Appellant filed Civil Suit No. 59 of 2005 in the Court of Small Cause Judge Pune, inter-alia seeking vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. The suit was filed on 24.12.004. The Small Cause Judge, Pune issued summons to the respondents in the suit which were served on 22.3.2005 counsel for the respondents filed vakalatnama and prayed for time to get information from his client and to file written statement, if any. On 20.6.2005 the matter was fixed for filing of the written statement. However, no written statement was filed. The Advocate requested for further time. The trial Court granted time to the respondents to file written statement at their own risk. Again, the matter was fixed for 14.7.2005. On that date also written statement was not filed. Again time was granted at the risk of the respondents. The written statement in fact was filed on 12.8.2005. Appellant sought for time to file the objections regarding the acceptability of the written statement which was filed after 142 days. By a cryptic order dated 9.9.2005 as noted above written statements were permitted to be filed and taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The order of the Trial Court was challenged before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution). The High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition on the ground that discretionary power has been exercised.