-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3804 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3804 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3804 OF 2008 Shri Baban Kondiba Kad ..Petitioner V/s. M/s. Shri Sai Engineering Services ..Respondent Mr. T.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. : A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATE DATE DATE : 7TH JULY, 2008 : 7TH JULY, 2008 : 7TH JULY, 2008 P.C. : . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. I see no infirmity in the view taken by the Court below in rejecting the application preferred by the Petitioner, for the reasons recorded in its order dated 28.04.2008 below Exhibit 98. The Court below has rightly recorded that the direction of the High Court in terms of order dated 6th February, 2007 has not been complied with at all by the Petitioner. Under the said order, the Petitioner was expected to appear before the Trial Court on 26th March, 2007 and tender written statement which was to be taken on record on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- as condition precedent. Even if the Petitioner’s case as set out in the affidavit, Exhibit ’D’, page 29, that he appeared before the Trial Court on the given date but had to return back as the matter was not on board or that he was watching the board on regular basis but the matter was not notified on board whereafter he filed an application for the relief in question on 28th April, 2008, is to be -2- accepted as it is. The fact remains that there is no explanation offered as to what prevented the Petitioner to offer sum of Rs.10,000/- by filing a formal application before the Trial Court accompanied by the Written Statement on 26th March, 2007. Significantly, the Application in question was filed by the Petitioner after almost fourteen months from the date of the High Court order dated 6th February, 2007, which order itself was indulgence shown to the Petitioner. Thus understood, the opinion recorded by the Court below for rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner is just and proper. No interference in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction is warranted. Dismissed. 2. After this order is dictated, now, the counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has also assailed the order dated 28th April, 2008 below Exhibit 98A whereby the Court below has rejected the Petitioner’s application for permission to file additional written statement. The Trial Court has rightly recorded that as the Petitioner is not permitted to file the written statement, the question of filing additional written statement does not arise. Petition dismissed. (A.M. (A.M. (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) KHANWILKAR, J.) KHANWILKAR, J.)