gst 1 wp2010.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 2010 OF 2011. Chandan H. Jasnani & Ors. ... .... ..... ...Petitioners. V/s Vithabhai Mavji Patel .... .... .... . ..Respondents. Mr.Makrand P.Panchakshare i/by Mr.Sandeep Shinde, Adv. For petitioners. Mr.G.R.Agarwal, Adv. For respondent No.1. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 17th March, 2011 PC: By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 2.12.10 vide which application for review of order dated 29.10.2010 by which application for setting aside the no written statement order and for permission to file written statement came to be allowed, however subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- and further subject to condition that petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.2 lacs which is to be invested in fixed deposit, came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner objects to the condition which directs the petitioners to deposit Rs.2 lacs. Shri Panchakshari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in directing the petitioner to deposit the said amount. 3. The learned trial Court while rejecting the review application vide order gst 2 wp2010.11.sxw dated 29.10.2010 has given elaborate reasons as to why such condition was imposed. Though there was a delay of almost nine months in filing the application for setting aside the “no written statement order”, same was allowed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court in the order dated 29.10.10 has found that though a ground of illness is given for not filing written statement from the Roznama of the proceedings before the criminal court it could be seen that the petitioner was attending the criminal court regularly. Learned trial Judge has already taken liberal view while allowing the application for setting aside the “no written statement order” and granting permission to take on record the written statement. In that view of the matter, no perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference. Hence writ petition is dismissed.