: 1 : 7501-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7501 OF 2011 Tukaram Shankar Sutar .. Petitioner v/s. Anantrao Ganpati Damakle & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Abhaysing Shinde with Rahul Kulkarni for the petitioner ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 12th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner. Petitioner is defendant no.5 in S.C. Suit No.320 of 2007 filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur. The Writ of Summons was served upon the petitioner on 15th September, 2007. Thereafter, no written statement order was passed on 7th July, 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the no written statement order on 15th September, 2008. The said application has been rejected by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur by order dated 12th March, 2010. This : 2 : 7501-11-wp=.sxw order dated 12th March, 2010 is challenged in this petition. 2. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner. I have also perused the text of the application by which no written statement order is requested to set aside. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Mont Blanc Properties and Industries Ltd. Vs. Mont Blanc Co­operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. 2009 C.T.J. 203. I have perused the said judgment. The facts in the present petition are glaring and clearly indicate that the petitioner was indolent. At this stage, the petitioner did not attend to the litigation in a proper manner. Though prayer clause (a) of the suit is directed against him, no written statement came to be filed practically for a period of 10 months and that is how the learned trial Judge was constrained to pass an order of no written statement. It would have been just possible for the petitioner to file an application for setting aside the said no written statement order immediately after the said order is passed. The petitioner did not do so. The petitioner waited for about 14 months to make an application for setting aside no written statement order. Here again the petitioner has disclosed indolence. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to what has been done by him from July, 2008 till September, 2008 and why : 3 : 7501-11-wp=.sxw there was a delay in filing this application. 3. In the body of the application for setting aside the no written statement order, reasons given are not convincing. The only grievance mentioned is that the petitioner could not collect necessary papers and information. This reason is very vague. It was necessary for the petitioner to mention in the said application as to which documents were required for the purpose of filing of written statement and why the petitioner could not get them. Same is equally applicable in relation to the information which was allegedly not received by the petitioner. The conduct on the part of the petitioner clearly disclose that the petitioner was indolent. The facts appearing in the present case are are different than the one which existed in the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. The learned trial Judge was right in taking a view that no written statement order cannot be revoked. In my view, no interference is required for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. Hence, petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)