(1) WP. 3674.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3674 OF 2010 Laxman S/o Baddappa Pawar .. Petitioner VERSUS Heerabai w/o Sidram Chinchore and others .. Respondents Mr. M.A. Kandharkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 24TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1] Heard. The petitioner is allegedly subsequent purchaser and was joined as defendant no.2. He did not file written statement in the suit which was instituted for the relief of partition and separate possession. He filed an application (Exh. 145) on 14.12.1989 seeking indulgence of the trial Court for setting aside “No written statement” order. Counsel would submit that there was no “No written statement” order passed by the trial Court nor the suit was pending for effective hearing due to interim stay granted by the appellate Court. He would submit that the original defendant no.1’s heirs had filed civil Appeal which was allowed by the Apex Court and the delay was condoned. The first appeal was (2) WP. 3674.2010 thereafter restored and as a sequel to the intervening circumstances, the petitioner could not file his written statement. The learned Judge of the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that there was no proper justification for the delay committed by the petitioner. 2] The application (Exh.145) shows that the petitioner did not explain the delay except the averment that the matter was pending before the Apex Court and this Court as well as the District Court for many years and that he resides at Mumbai for earning his livelihood. Even assuming that the matter was pending in various Courts for some years yet due to intervening stay of the proceedings of the civil suit, the petitioner was not debarred from filing of the written statement. The Advocate for the petitioner attended the trial Court on 3.5.1997. On 17.12.1999 the trial Court directed to proceed without written statement. Petitioner (original defendant no.2) was duly served with summons on 22.4.1994 after he was added as party. Obviously, he was expected to file the written statement atleast within a period of 90 days after first appearance i.e. in the first week of September, 1997. The petitioner did not take any appropriate steps within the reasonable time. He was served with suit summons at native village i.e. Kesarjawalga, Tq. Omerga. The delay in filing of the written statement is enormous, (3) WP. 3674.2010 not at all explained satisfactorily and that the petitioner cannot claim filing of the written statement at the fag end of the trial. The impugned order is therefore, quite justified. No interference called for. Petition dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp