IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 336 OF 2009 MR. ADOLFO JOHN CARVALHO ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. RAMAKRISHNA ANAND RAIKAR AND 66 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the Petitioner. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 19th June, 2009 P.C. Heard Advocate Shri Godinho for the Petitioner/plaintiff. 2. The contention is that defendant nos. 4 and 5 did not file any application pointing out exceptional circumstances and did not seek leave to file written statement beyond 90 days. The petitioner/plaintiff filed application under Order VIII Rule 1 contending that written statement could not have been accepted on record. Advocate Godinho contends that as no exceptional circumstances or hardships were pointed out by the defendant nos. 4 and 5 and there was no application under Order VIII Rule 1 filed by them while dismissing above application of petitioner/plaintiff, direction to take their written statement on record could not have been issued. 3. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have perused the papers. These defendants were served on 09.09.2008 and on 09.12.2008 i.e.(90th day) matter was for filing the written statement. 09.12.2008, it was declared holiday because of Bakri Id and, therefore, matter was taken up on board on 10.12.2008. Defendant nos. 4 and 5 did not appear on 10.12.2008 and matter was adjourned to 15.12.2008. On 15.12.2008, defendant nos. 4 and 5 filed their written statement. 4. Thus, though technically written statement is not filed within 90 days and also no exceptional difficulties have been pointed out by defendant nos. 4 and 5 on record so as to enable the Trial Court to take it on record, it cannot be said that there was any deliberate delay of latches on their part. Considering the situation, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction or examine the controversy as raised. 5. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. arp/*