hcs 1 w10349.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10349 OF 2010 Dilip Ramchandra Gokhale .. Petitioner. Vs. Arun Ramchandra Gokhale & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.Sagar Joshi for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Patil for respondent no.1. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th February, 2011. PC: 1. By way of the present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 15th July, 2010 by which the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the written statement came to be dismissed. 2. The petitioner was served with suit summons on 8th July, 2005. He appeared on 12th September, 2005. Thereafter since the petitioner did not file written statement upto 18th March, 2008, the order of “No. W.S.” came to be filed. Thereafter, application for condoning the delay in filing written statement was filed. The same is rejected. 3. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in interest of justice the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent- hcs 2 w10349.10.sxw plaintiff if the written statement is permitted to be taken on record in view of amended provision. 4. Under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the written statement is required to be filed within 30 days. However, for the reasons to be recorded in writing the trial Court could permit filing of written statement within extended period of 90 days from the date of receipt of suit summons. However, this provisions has been held to be not mandatory. The Apex Court has observed the power is to be exercised only in exceptional and compelling circumstances and not in routine course. The only ground stated in the application is that the petitioner was sufferring from depression. No material to substantiate the case is provided either before the trial Court or before this court. In that view of the matter no case is made out for interference by this court in extra-ordinary juriisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence the petition is rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)