1 WP No.8254/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8254 of 2010 Jiten Zaverchand Gala and ors. ... Petitioners versus Prabhakar Sitaram Banap & ors ... Respondents ... Mr. R.M.Haridas for the petitioners Mr.Prashant G. Karande for respondent no.1. Mr.S.P. Thorat for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 8th August 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17 August 2010 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court rejecting the petitioners’ application for setting aside the “No WS order” and thereby refusing the permission to file the written statement. 2. Petitioners are defendant nos.2 and 3 in the suit. Writ of summons of the suit was served on them on 12 April 2006. Written statement was not filed by them within the statutory period of 30 days or even within the extended period of 90 days as is permitted under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court 2 WP No.8254/10 finally passed “No WS order” on 7 January 2008 and directed the suit to proceed without their written statement. Even thereafter, the petitioners did nothing further for a period of more than 2 years. In July 2010, they applied for setting aside the “No WS order” and for permission to file written statement. By the impugned order, the permission was rejected. I see no error in the view taken by the trial court in refusing the application of the petitioner. 3. In Kailash Vs. Nanhku, AIR 2005 SC 2441, the Supreme Court has held that though the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are directory, the court should not interpret them so as to take away their life and blood. Court must give effect to the intention of the legislature to curtail the delays in the trial of the suits. 4. For granting permission to file written statement beyond 90 days, there must be a real good cause. The trial court was satisfied that there was no real good cause for not filing the written statement. The finding of fact recorded by the trial court requires no interference in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. There is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected. (D.G.KARNIK, J)