JUDGMENT : By this Writ petition, the petitioner (original defendant no.5) has challenged order dated 20.12.2021, passed by the Court of District Judge- II, Panaji (hereinafter referred to as the District Court) whereby an application for condonation of delay in filing written statement has been dismissed. As a consequence, the trial is likely to proceed in the absence of the written statement on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The respondent nos.1 and 2 in the present case have filed a suit for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants, including the petitioner herein. The challenge in the said suit is to a technical clearance order and construction license granted to the petitioner for carrying out repairs/reconstruction of the structure in question, on the allegation that the said technical clearance order and construction license were obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. 3. In the said suit an application for temporary injunction was filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. The said application was rejected by the District Court, but a challenge is raised against the same by way of filing writ petition before this Court. It is informed that there is an interim order passed against the petitioner and that the said writ petition is pending. 4. The petitioner filed application for condonation of delay in filing written statement, along with written statement before the District Court. There were certain reasons stated for condonation of delay, including pendency of the certain other proceedings. But the District Court found that the explanation was not satisfactory and it was recorded that the delay of about one year ten months was not properly explained. On this basis, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. 5. In the present Writ Petition on 17.1.2022, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in this Court towards security for costs, within a period of two weeks while issuing notice in the Writ Petition. It was recorded in the aforesaid order that prima facie it did appear that there was absence of proper explanation for condoning delay in filing written statement. Yet, the Writ Petition was being entertained having regard to the immense prejudice that the petitioner would face in the absence of written statement before the District Court. 6. Upon service of notice, the respondents have appeared through Counsel. 7. Yet, the Writ Petition was being entertained having regard to the immense prejudice that the petitioner would face in the absence of written statement before the District Court. 6. Upon service of notice, the respondents have appeared through Counsel. 7. When the Writ Petition is called out for hearing, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to an affidavit dated 3.1.2022 filed by the Advocate appearing for the petitioner i.e. original defendant no.5 before the District Court. In the affidavit, the Advocate has explained as to the bonafide impression under which she proceeded that the written statement was already filed, while factually the written statement was not filed before the District Court. A perusal of the said affidavit shows that it was a mistake or an error on the part of the Advocate representing the petitioner before the District Court, which was one of the factors that led to delay in filing written statement. This aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the District Court and the Advocate representing the petitioner before the District Court did not make an effort to file such an affidavit, explaining the reasons why the written statement was not placed on record within time. 8. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it cannot be said that the District Court fell in error in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing written statement, but, at the same time this Court cannot be oblivious of the material now brought on record, particularly the affidavit filed by the Advocate representing the petitioner before the District Court. The present case could be said to be a case where the petitioner is likely to suffer immense prejudice due to mistake or error on the part of his Advocate. This Court is of the opinion that a party to a litigation ought not to suffer because of the mistake of his or her Advocate. In the present case, the affidavit dated 3.1.2022 filed by the Advocate shows that she was under the bonafide impression that the written statement was already filed. If sufficient care was taken by the said Advocate, perhaps the petitioner would not have faced the situation that he finds himself in. 9. In the present case, the affidavit dated 3.1.2022 filed by the Advocate shows that she was under the bonafide impression that the written statement was already filed. If sufficient care was taken by the said Advocate, perhaps the petitioner would not have faced the situation that he finds himself in. 9. Hence, without commenting upon the reasons stated by the District Court in the impugned order, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is of the opinion that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to place the written statement on record, only to have an opportunity to contest the suit filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 on merits. There can be no doubt about the fact that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have been put to inconvenience because of the aforesaid state of affairs and that they deserve to be compensated in that regard. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by the petitioner before this Court is made over to the respondent nos.1 and 2 towards costs. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the petitioner at Exh.36 is allowed. Consequently, the written statement shall be taken on record by the District Court. The amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited in this Court by the petitioner shall be disbursed in favour of respondent nos.1 and 2 along with accrued interest, if any, forthwith. 11. Writ Petition stands disposed.