:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 552 OF 2008 Shri Vitthal Nivrutti Shinde ..Petitioner Vs. Ganesh Shankar Shinde and ors. ..Respondents Mr. Rupesh Bobade for petitioner. Mr. Surel S. Shah for respondent nos.1 to 5. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : April 11, 2008. Date : April 11, 2008. Date : April 11, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Bobade the learned counsel for the petitioner who is impleaded as defendant no.3 in RCS No. 72 of 2003 filed in the court of the learned Civil Judge, J.D. at Madha. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property which was claimed to be a joint property along with defendant nos.1 and 2. It appears that said property was sold by defendant nos.1 and 2 to defendant :2: no.3,who in turn, sold it to defendant no.4 and defendant no.4, in turn, sold it to defendant no.5 3. Despite the service of summons as per the Bailiff’s report at Exh.7, on or about 2/4/2003, the petitioner - defendant no.3 did not appear before the court and filed his Written Statement. Consequently, the trial court passed an order on 21/7/2003 to proceed with the trial of the suit without the Written Statement of defendant no.3. The said order was sought to be recalled by filing an application at Exh.45 which has been rejected by the learned Civil Judge, J.D. at Madha by the impugned order dated 7/1/2008. 4. In the application filed at Exh.45 the defendant no.3 has given false reasons and even in the said application no attempt was made to take the Written Statement on record. The application was filed almost after three and half years. In the application at Exh.45 no reasons have been set out which will amount to rarest of rare and exceptional circumstances so as to allow the Written Statement to :3: be taken on record after 90 days or 120 days, as the case may be. 5. As noted earlier, the petitioner is no more in possession of the suit property and he has transferred the same to defendant no.4, who in turn, transferred the same to defendant no.5. Both these defendants have appeared before the trial court and filed their Written Statement. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)