1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 772 OF 2008 Shri. Noorkhan Pathankhan Pathan } Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Khajola, Tq. : Pachora, } Dist.: Jalgaon. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Central Bank of India } Nagardeola Branch, } Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. } 2. Shri. Yograj Zavaru Patil } Age : Major, Occ.: Agriculture } R/o : Khajola, Tq. : Pachora,} Dist.: Jalgaon. } 3. Shri. Balu Hilal Patil } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculture } R/o : Khajola, Tq. : Pachora,} Dist.: Jalgaon. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.A. Pradhan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. K.B.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent. [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 07/09/2009 2 JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned Order dated 16/11/2007 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jalgaon below Exh. 14 in Spl.Civil Suit No. 256 of 2006. 2. Respondent no. 1 herein, who is original plaintiff filed Spl. Civil Suit No. 256 of 2006 for the recovery of Rs. 5,67,977/- from the present petitioner before the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jalgaon. Present petitioner appeared before the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jalgaon in Special Civil Suit No. 256 of 2006 on 8/1/2007. It is further case of the petitioner that he left for Surat on 15/1/2007 in search of work. Petitioner did not file Written Statement till 24/7/2007. On 24/7/2007, Court passed no W.S. Order and Suit proceeded without W.S. It is further case of the petitioner that on 25/10/2007, he returned from Surat (Gujrat) to his native place Khajola. On 29/10/2007, petitioner filed an application at Exh. 14 praying for setting aside no W.S. Order dated 24/7/2007. By impugned order, the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jalgaon rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the sufficient cause was disclosed in the application, which was filed for 3 setting aside No W.S. Order. The Court without appreciating the contention of the petitioner that he went to Gujrat in search of work and only on 24/7/2007, he came back, has not been accepted by the Court below. Therefore, relying on grounds raised in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing or the respondent vehemently opposed application and relying on affidavit in reply, submitted that the petitioner had engaged his Advocate on 8/1/2007. He appeared in the matter. However, no written statement was filed. The petitioner was not diligent in submitting his Written Statement within the stipulated period. The Court by well reasoned order, has rejected the application for setting aside No W.S. Order filed by the petitioner and, therefore, counsel appearing for the respondent, prayed for dismissal of Writ Petition. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and after perusal of the reasons recorded by the Court below, while rejecting application of the petitioner for setting aside No W.S. Order, I am of the considered view that the trial court has taken a possible view in the matter and, therefore, no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. The Court has recorded that there is no record except affidavit of defendant no. 1 that he had been to Gujrat 4 State for his livelihood. More over, no particular period is mentioned. The Court after going through the contents of the application, came to the conclusion that no sufficient reasons or the exceptional circumstances are pointed out in the application to entertain the prayer of the petitioner to set aside No W.S. Order. 6. Viewed from any angle, if the application filed by the petitioner itself is vague, without mentioning any sufficient cause and without mentioning the period, there is no option to the Court but to reject the said application. Apart from above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “ The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 are not mandatory in nature and said are directory in nature and Court can entertain prayer for filing Written Statement, if exceptional circumstances are shown ”. 7. In the present case, on perusal of the application, the Court below has found that no specific and sufficient reasons are given by the applicant. 8. No exceptional circumstances are shown by the petitioner. Therefore, in my considered view, this case does not warrant 5 interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP772.08