SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4118 OF 2008 Arvind Gopal More ...Petitioner Versus Smt.Krishnabai Dagadoba Ganjve ...Respondent ...... Mr.S.P.Thorat for Petitioner. None for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Perused the Application Exhibit 18 filed by the Petitioner before the Trial Court for setting aside of no written statement order and to permit the Petitioner to file the written statement. The Court below has rejected the said application as no exceptional situation was brought on record. Even if the argument of the Petitioner : 2 : that the Judgment referred to in the impugned order is not directly on the point is to be accepted, the fact remains that the suit summons was served on the Petitioner on 16th March 2007. It is also fairly accepted by the Petitioner’s Counsel that no written statement order came to be passed sometime in October 2007. Nevertheless, the Petitioner chose to file present Application Exhibit 18 only on 11th March 2008. The only reason mentioned in the Application is that the Petitioner was unable to get certain information to be furnished to his Advocate so that the written statement could be filed. In the first place, the assertion in the Application Exhibit 18 is blissfully vague. Even if that assertion is to be considered on its own merits, in my opinion, that cannot be said to be exceptional situation. It is well established position that the Court will assume jurisdiction to show discretion to the Defendant for filing written statement beyond ninety days only if exceptional circumstance is made out by the Defendant. That is lacking in the present case. Hence, dismissed. : 3 : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.