JUDGMENT A.S. Chandurkar, J. 1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. Challenge is to the order passed by the trial Court refusing permission to the petitioner to file written statement along with counter-claim. 2. The respondent No. 1 is the original plaintiff who had initially filed suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against respondent No. 2. In said proceedings, the present petitioner filed an application vide Exhibit-18 for intervening in the said proceedings. By order dated 23-1-2013, the trial Court allowed said application and directed addition of present petitioner as defendant No. 2. 3. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for temporary injunction which ultimately came to be rejected on 6-1-2014. The respondent No. 1 in the meanwhile had also sought permission to amend the plaint and said application was allowed on 6-1-2014. On being supplied copy of the amended plaint, the petitioner on 17-2-2014 filed application for permission to file written statement on record along with counter-claim. The trial Court by order dated 2-4-2014 rejected the said application on the ground that the written statement was sought to be filed belatedly. 4. Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner (defendant No. 2) submitted that though the said defendant was joined in the suit as per order dated 23-1-2013, she was supplied with copy of the amended plaint only on 20-1-2014. He, therefore submitted that the application for permission to file written statement was liable to be granted. He submitted that in absence of copy of the plaint and documents filed along with it, it was not possible for said defendant to file her written statement. 5. Smt. M.N. Hiwase, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) opposed aforesaid submissions. She submitted that the defendant No. 2 was joined as a party on 23-1-2013 and thereafter said defendant did not take any steps to obtain the copy of the plaint for filing the written statement. She however urged that said defendant had filed application for temporary injunction and pursued the same. It was only after said application came to be rejected, that necessary permission was sought. She therefore submitted that the trial Court rightly rejected the application for permission as sought. 6. I have carefully considered aforesaid submissions. The defendant No. 2 came to be added in the suit by order dated 23-1-2013 passed below Exhibit-18. It was only after said application came to be rejected, that necessary permission was sought. She therefore submitted that the trial Court rightly rejected the application for permission as sought. 6. I have carefully considered aforesaid submissions. The defendant No. 2 came to be added in the suit by order dated 23-1-2013 passed below Exhibit-18. A direction was issued by the trial Court to the plaintiff to add the petitioner as defendant No. 2 and to take steps as per the procedure. It is not in dispute that the defendant No. 2 had thereafter filed application for temporary injunction on 8-4-2013 which came to be rejected on 6-1-2014. Subsequent amendment to the plaint was permitted on 6-1-2014. It is the specific case of the petitioner that copy of the amended plaint came to be supplied to her on 20-1-2014. In the application seeking permission to file written statement, in paragraph 3, it has been stated that the plaintiff had supplied the amended copy of the plaint on 20-1-2014 and hence said defendant desired to file her written statement. It is also to be noted that in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it has been specifically averred that after the petitioner came to be added as defendant No. 2, copy of the plaint after such addition along with necessary documents were supplied to said defendant. In the affidavit in reply which has been filed by respondent No. 1, these averments have not been specifically controverted. On the contrary, it is stated that the said defendant did not seek a copy of the original plaint or documents filed on record. 7. It is to be noted that as per the order passed below Exhibit-18, after petitioner was added as defendant No. 2, the plaintiff had been directed to comply with the necessary procedure. It implied supplying copy of the plaint along with necessary documents. Under provisions of Order I, Rule 10(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the duty of the plaintiff to serve a copy of the plaint on a newly added defendant. Considering the specific averments as referred to above, it cannot be held that copy of the plaint had been supplied to the defendant No. 2 prior to 20-1-2014. Under provisions of Order I, Rule 10(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the duty of the plaintiff to serve a copy of the plaint on a newly added defendant. Considering the specific averments as referred to above, it cannot be held that copy of the plaint had been supplied to the defendant No. 2 prior to 20-1-2014. If that be the situation, then the application dated 17-2-2014 moved by defendant No. 2 is within a period of 30 days from the copy of the plaint being served on her. 8. Though it is true that the defendant No. 2 had filed application for temporary injunction, that by itself cannot take away the right to file written statement if copy of the plaint itself is not shown to be served. In absence of any material on record to indicate service of copy of the plaint on newly added defendant, her stand that the same was supplied for the first time on 20-1-2014 will have to be accepted. It is also to be noted that the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code are directory in nature and delay if any can be condoned in an appropriate case. The present is therefore an appropriate case warranting grant of permission to file written statement. 9. In view of aforesaid, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of permission to file written statement. Hence the impugned order dated 2-4-2014 refusing to grant such permission is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order is passed. "(i) Order dated 2-4-2014 passed below Exhibit-43 is set aside. (ii) The trial Court is directed to accept the written statement filed by defendant No. 2. (iii) The trial Court shall independently examine whether the counterclaim as filed is in accordance with provisions of Order 8, Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. (iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs."