Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties.

2. By this Writ Petition the original plaintiff challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division Wardha whereby he allowed the application of the defendant to place the Written Statement on record.

3. The facts shorn of details are as follows: Petitioner-plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,6,61,236/. Defendant-respondent is a Municipal Council. Upon service of the summons respondent/Municipal Council appeared before the Court on 06.06.2006. Applications were moved by the respondents-defendants Municipal Council for grant of time to file Written Statement on three occasions. Thereafter respondent defendants moved an application that the copies of the documents have not been supplied. Such application was once again moved and the said application was rejected by the learned Judge and suit was directed to proceed without Written Statement. Later on 26.02.2008 the defendant filed an application for permission to file Written Statement. The said application was heard by the learned Judge and was allowed and the petitioner-plaintiff feels aggrieved by that order.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contends that the defendants had failed to file Written Statement for a period of more than a year and that too for no reason. Defendants had appeared in the suit on 06.06.2006 and had sought time thrice for filing the written statement on the ground that record and documents were not available. For the first time defendants raised an objection by application dated 19.07.2006 that the documents required to be supplied with the summons and copy of plaint are not supplied. Defendants contended that without that it cannot file Written Statement. Time was granted by the Court. On the next date i.e. on 06.10.2006 again the defendants raised said contention that copies of the documents are not supplied and Written Statement cannot be filed. Application came to be rejected. Thereafter even the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded by the Court. Defendants filed application for permission to file Written Statement. In this application defendants contended that since the plaintiff did not supply the documents defendants obtained certified copies in which time was lost and therefore Written Statement could not be filed early.

6. Even though the defendants complained after filing three applications seeking adjournment to file Written Statement that documents are not supplied the defendants did not insist on Court to direct the plaintiff to supply documents nor the Court of its own directed the plaintiffs to supply such documents. Defendants initially were merely contending that it has not laid its hands on the documents and cannot file a Written Statement. They do not say which are those documents and what is their relevance and importance. Defendants were merely saying that it is obtaining certified copies and would file Written Statement. One wonders which could be those documents of which certified copies could be obtained from the Court. In fact for filing a Written Statement it can be only those documents which are related to the contract between the parties which are relevant. The contention that it obtained certified copies and then file Written Statement cannot be accepted and does not appear to be correct since the trial of the suit itself had not begun. The civil Court issues certified copies of only proved documents. There was no proved document on record at that time and it is therefore difficult to accept defendants contention that it had to obtain certified copies from the civil Court and that it obtained so. Defendant was merely putting an excuse for not filing Written Statement. Even after defendants last application dated 06.10.2006 was rejected the defendant did not ask the Court to direct the plaintiff to supply the documents and that