1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1395 OF 2010 (Shri Gajanan Cotspin vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. MARCH 25, 2010. Heard Shri Bhide, learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff. The challenge is to the order dated 11.02.2010 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon, taking written statement of respondent – defendant on record. Shri Bhide, learned counsel contends that the order of “No written statement” was passed on 02.11.2009 and within one month thereof, no steps were taken by the respondent. He states that the impugned order constituted review of that order and hence in the absence of appropriate application within time, or then an application seeking condonation of delay, trial Court could not have taken cognizance of such an application. In support, he relies upon the judgment in the case of Ragho Singh vs. Mohan Singh, reported at (2001) 9 SCC 717. The perusal of the reported judgment shows that there, the Hon’ble Apex Court was not considering 2 the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. The appeal was filed before the Additional Collector beyond time by 10 days without any application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, found that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction. Here, the law itself permits the Court to take on record written statement, if appropriate reasons are given. The respondent – defendant has given such reasons and the trial Court is satisfied with the same. No case is, therefore, made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.