IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 4542 OF 2007 VASANT K. VANPATRE ... PETITIONER. VS. RANJANA D. LEKAVALE ... RESPONDENT. MR. DEOKAR I/B. R.S. KATE FOR THE PETITIONER. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A. Sayed, J. : A.A. Sayed, J. : A.A. Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : April 16, 2008. : April 16, 2008. : April 16, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 14.7.2006 and 13.2.2007, passed by the Civil Judge, J.D., Bhor in Regular Civil Suit No. 47/1996, whereby the learned trial Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner for setting aside the order of no written statement and for taking the written statement on record. 3. The order of no written statement was passed sometime in 1997. Thereafter the application has been moved to set aside the said order in 2006, which came to be rejected because of absence of the petitioner and his advocate, by order dated 14.7.2006. 4. Thereafter another application was sought to be filed under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order of no written statement and for taking the written statement on record, which came to be rejected by the order dated 13.2.2007. 5. The learned Trial Judge has rightly held that such an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is no decree as such passed. Even otherwise, the petition does not deserve to be entertained as the order of no written statement is of the year 1997. Moreover, similar application has already been rejected in 2006 and no further proceedings hade been filed against the said order. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, I see no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and the application has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. ..... [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]