IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1881 OF 2009 Shri.Mohan Achyut Tarde & Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Mr.Deepak Gamanlal Mehta & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Ms.Medha Mandke for Petitioners. Mr.U.J.Makhija, Sr.Counsel i/b Ms.Preeti Shah for Respondents 1 & 2. ...... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 27, 2009. 27, 2009. 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the prayer for recall of no written statement order passed on 6th February 2008. It is indisputable that the summons was duly served on the Petitioners on 1st January 2008. Pursuant to the said summons, the Petitioners were expected to appear before the Court on the date specified in the summons. It is : 2 : not the case of the Petitioners that on that date they made appearance before the Court and found that the matter was not listed. The explanation offered in the application is that due to business pre-engagements, the Petitioners were required to travel out of town and could not give instructions to their Advocate. Such vague explanation is unacceptable. It is noticed that before passing no written statement order, the matter was listed before the Trial Court on 2nd January 2008, 23rd January 2008 and eventually on 6th February 2008 when no written statement order came to be passed. Significantly, the matter appeared before the Trial Court thereafter on 5th March, 3rd April, 18th June and 23rd July 2008, but no appearance was made on behalf of the Defendant nor any formal request made for extension of time. In fact, the Respondent proceeded to file his evidence in view of the no written statement order. It is only on 17th September 2008, the Petitioners chose to file the said Application for recall of order dated 6th February 2008 and the explanation offered in the Application Exhibit 15 is not only unsatisfactory but completely vague and unacceptable. : 3 : 3. In the circumstances, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.