1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7654 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Mr. A.B.More, Advocate for Petitioner. ........................... [ CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. ] DATE : 20/11/2009. PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 12/8/2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) , Paranda below Exh. 274 and 275 in R.C.S. No. 114 of 1987. 2. In a Suit filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 for partition and separate possession, the petitioners are the defendants. 3. Since the petitioners did not file the Written Statement within stipulated time, the learned trial court 2 had passed an order of no written statement. An application came to be filed for setting aside the said order, the same was rejected. 4. Thereafter, the matter was posted for evidence. After the evidence of plaintiff was over and the matter was fixed for cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, the present petitioners remained absent and, therefore, no cross order came to be passed. Subsequently, an application came to be filed for setting aside no written statement order. The same is also rejected. Being aggrieved by these orders, the present Writ Petition. 5. Mr. More, the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that the learned trial court in the interest of justice ought to have allowed the application for setting aside no cross order. 6. From the perusal of the material on record, it reveals that the present petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the Suit. Even after they were aware that the Suit has to be proceeded expeditiously in view of the 3 directions of the appellate court, they chose to remain absent on the date when the matter was fixed for cross examination. The learned trial court has found that though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff, they have not availed of the said remedy. 7. In that view of the matter, the learned trial court has rejected the application for setting no written statement order. No perversity is found in the order passed by the learned trial court, as such interference does not warrant. Hence, rejected. [ B.R.GAVAI ] JUDGE knp/WP7654.09