1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR C.R.A.NO.81 OF 2009. Mrs.Ramadevi D.Pande and anr. ..vs.. Indushri A.Agrawal and anr. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 3rd December, 2009. Heard Mr.Mahesh Rai, learned counsel for the applicants. This revision challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Tumsar, whereby he rejected an application to accept the written statement on record. The order shows that the order with regard to the suit proceeding without written statement was passed on 17/6/2006 and the said order was set aside on 15/4/2009 and the applicant/defendant was called upon to file the written statement but did not file and hence the second application for grant of permission was rejected. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant submits that the applicant/defendant is a tenant in the premises since 1960 and that is the only shop in her possession. He submit 2 that applicant/defendnt will loose only source of livelihood and therefore the court may show indulgence. The synopsis filed by the applicant itself goes to show that the suit was filed in the year 2005 and until 2009 written statement was not filed. On 4/3/2009, the Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the defendant/applicant and permitted the defendant to file written statement on payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. It is stated by the learned counsel that the amount was deposited but written statement was not filed. Once again the court passed an order directing the suit to proceed without written statement. Therefore, second application was filed and that application has been rejected. The learned counsel submits that defendant was ill and therefore could not file the written statement. It appears that no certificate showing any kind of illness was filed along with the application. The court had once set aside the order of no written statement and had granted an opportunity to the applicant to file written statement, that was not availed. In the circumstances, The learned judge has rightly rejected the application for setting aside the order of no written statement. I do not find that the learned Judge committed any error in rejecting the said application. There is no substance in the revision application. It is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. chute 3