JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the orders dated 18.10.2011, whereby, the applications filed by the respondent under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC for excluding the written statement and reply to temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner was dismissed but it was ordered that the petitioner would pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- each then the written statement and reply to temporary injunction application would be taken on record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for specific performance was filed on 05.04.2010. The trial court issued notices of the suit as well as application for temporary injunction and the first date fixed in the matter was 13.04.2010. The petitioner-defendant put in his appearance on 06.10.2010 and thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time awaiting his written statement. The learned trial court by its order dated 27.05.2011 granted last opportunity to file written statement and reply to temporary injunction application and fixed 29.07.2011 as the next date. On account of 29.07.2011 being holiday, the matter was taken up on 30.07.2011 and on 30.07.2011 the written statement and reply to temporary injunction application was filed and on the same date the plaintiff filed applications under Order 8, Rule 1 CPC seeking exclusion of the said written statement and reply to temporary injunction application the same having been filed after the prescribed period without any sufficient cause. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the time was granted by the learned trial court on 27.05.2011 for filing the written statement and reply to temporary injunction application, there was no occasion for imposing a huge cost of Rs. 10,000/- each. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent supported the order impugned and stated that the written statement and reply to temporary injunction application were filed after a huge delay without any cause and the same were not accompanied by any explanation and, therefore, the learned trial court was justified in imposing the cost. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 7. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 7. It is true that the written statement and reply to temporary injunction application has been filed by the petitioner after inordinate delay, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the suit relates to specific performance of agreement, valuation whereof is Rs. 84,000/-, the ends of justice would meet if the cost imposed by the trial court by the impugned orders is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- each to Rs. 5,000/- in all. 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed. The orders dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure-10 and 11) passed in suit as well as in the temporary injunction application are modified to the extent that the cost imposed by the learned trial court is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- each to Rs. 5,000/- in all, the same be paid in both the cases on the next date. No costs.Writ petition partly allowed. *******