IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that while the time schedule for filing a written statement should generally be honored, exceptional situations may warrant an extension to ensure a fair trial and balance the rights of both parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Interim Application, which was earlier filed as a Notice of Motion, has been filed on behalf of the Defendant seeking to set aside the order dated 11th August 2010 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master directing that the plaint of S.C.Suit No.4768 of 2007 (now renumbered as Suit No.895 of 2007) to proceed without written statement of the Defendant and to condone the delay of approximately seven years which has been caused in filing the written statement of the Defendant and that the Defendant be permitted to file its written statement dated 17th July 2014.

2. Mr.Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant, would submit that the Plaintiffs had earlier on 24th July 2006 filed Suit no.4768 of 2007 (renumbered as Suit No.895 of 2007) before this Court inter alia seeking declaration that the Conveyance Deed dated 16th June 1994 was void and not binding upon the Plaintiffs. That the Plaintiffs had not filed any Notice of Motion for interim relief at the time of filing of the Suit. That on 15th May 2010 there was a change in the directors of the Defendant-company whereby the old directors resigned and the new directors (Bilakhiya family) took over the functioning of the company. That on 11th August 2010 the Prothonotary and Senior Master passed order dated 11th August 2010 directing the Suit to proceed without written statement.

3. In 2012, in view of the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bombay, the Suit came to be transferred from this Court to the Bombay City Civil Court. On 4th December 2012, 23rd July 2013 and 31st July 2013 the Suit came to be listed before the Bombay City Civil Court, however, none of the parties appeared on these three occasions. That on 3rd August 2013 the Plaintiffs and/or their Advocates remained absent and the Suit came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. On 27th September 2013, the Plaintiffs filed Miscellaneous Application No.69 of 2013 for setting aside the order of dismissal for default and for restoration of the Suit. On 8th April 2014 the Suit was restored by the Bombay City Civil Court.

4. Mr.Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that on 24th July 2014 soon after acquiring the knowledge belatedly about the no written statement order, the Defendant filed this Notice of Motion for setting aside the no written statement order.

5. On 24th July 2014 itself Notice of Motion No.2642 of 2014 came to be filed by the Defendant inter alia seeking dismissal of the Suit on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction as the value of the Suit property was more than Rs.1 crore and that the Suit could not be maintained before the Bombay City Civil Court. On 13th April 2015, the said Notice of Motion No.2642 of 2014 was allowed and accordingly the Suit along with the Notice of Motion (being renumbered as this Interim Application No.1508 of 2023) came to be re-transferred to this Court. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that on 3rd August 2016 i.e. ten years after the filing of the Suit, the Plaintiffs filed Notice of Motion No.2200 of 2016 seeking interim reliefs against the Defendant restraining the Defendant from creating third party rights and it is only in December 2022, which is six years later, the said Notice of Motion No.2200 of 2016 was circulated by the Plaintiffs for hearing and on 13th September 2023 the same came to be disposed of as being infructuous.

6. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra, 2022 SCC Online SC 613 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that if the Suit is not governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the time limit for filing the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is not mandatory in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash vs. Nankhu, (2005) 4 SCC 480. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that it has been held in the said