1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8068 OF 2009 Sk. Immam Abdul and others. .. petitioners Versus Sk. Rubabee w/o. Sulekan .. Respondent. --- Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 1st December, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th April, 2009 vide which the application filed by the present petitioners for setting aside the NO.W.S. Order came to be rejected. 2] The suit summons were received by the petitioners on 4th January,2008. Even after a period of six months during which several adjournments were granted to the petitioners they failed to file the written statement. Hence, no W.S. Order came to be passed on 16th June,2009. Thereafter an application for setting aside the `NO.W.S. Order' came to be filed on 7th February, 2009. the same is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 2 3] Shri Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial court ought to have allowed the application in the interest of justice. 4] The Apex Court in the case “Kailash Vs. Nanhku and others” reported in 2005 AIR SCW 2346 has held that written statement is required to be filed within 30 days and within an extended period of 90 days for the reasons to be recorded. However, it has been further held that if a party makes out an exceptional and compelling circumstances, written statement can be accepted beyond the period of 90 days. However, refusal to accept the written statement after 90 days is a rule and departure therefrom is an exception. . In the present case, vague allegations are made that the papers pertaining to the earlier litigation could not be obtained and, therefore, written statement could not be within stipulated period. No details in regard to the steps taken by the petitioners for obtaining the said papers are given. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 3