IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 442 OF 2008 I C I C I LTD ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. SUNIL VISHRAM GAWAS AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri A. D. Bhobe holding for Shri Amit Palekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 27th February, 2009 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. This petition is by the Defendant No.1 and is directed against Order dated 15-4-2008 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji by which Defendant No.1's request for time to file written statement has been rejected observing that the Defendant No.1 was only trying to delay the trial of the suit. As can be seen from the impugned Order dated 15-4-2008 the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 was served with summons on 13-2-2008 for his appearance on 25-3-2008 on which date the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 appeared and sought time to file written statement. The suit was therefore adjourned to 15-4-2008. On 15-4-2008 the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 which is a private Bank sought adjournment of two days to file the written statement stating that the documents to prepare the same were awaited from their office at New Delhi. It is this application which came to be rejected. The least the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division ought to have done is to impose costs and certainly not deprive the Defendant No.1 from contesting the suit by filing a written statement on a very second occasion more so when it was shown before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division that time was required by them because the documents were not received from their office at New Delhi. The impugned order is nothing but arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 12th March, 2009 at 10.00 a.m. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/Defendant No.1 assures that the written statement will be filed on that day. Petition disposed off on the above terms. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.