1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7563 OF 2008 Rajesh Arun Mogal & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Mahendra Agavekar i/by Shri S.M. Lagu for the Petitioners. Ms Bharti Thakker i/by M/s. Consulta Juris for Respondent No.1. Shri Sagar Joshi for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners by this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have challenged the order dated 14th November, 2005 passed by the trial Court. The Petitioners are the 1st and 3rd Defendants in a Suit filed by the 1st Respondent praying for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,28,828/- with interest thereon at the rate of 16% per annum. On 14th November, 2005, the trial Court passed an order directing that the suit will proceed without written statement of the Petitioners. On 18th October, 2006, an application was made by the Petitioners at Exhibit – 11 praying for setting aside the said order and for taking a written statement on record. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2. When this Petition came up before this Court on 3rd November, 2009, this Court passed the following order. 2 “The counsel for the petitioner seeks time to obtain instructions from his client as to whether the petitioner/defendant is ready and willing to deposit the money claimed in the suit in which event the petitioner can be offered an apportunity to file written statement and contest the claim on merit. Stand over for two weeks.” 3. When this Petition came up before this Court on 1st December, 2009, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners again sought time to take instructions from the Petitioners as to whether they were ready and willing to deposit a substantial part of the suit claim. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners are unable to deposit any amount. 4. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, I find that no case is made out to interfere with a discretionary order passed by the trial Court. Though the Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is held to be directory, extension of time cannot be granted for asking. The extension cannot be granted unless a case of existence of exceptional circumstances or exceptional reasons is made out by the Defendants. No such case is made out by the Petitioners in the application at Exhibit-11. The said application runs only into 7 lines. 5. No case for interference is made out. The Petition is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE