-1- IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 90 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 90 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 90 OF 2008 Uttam Shankar Jagdale : Petitioner v/s Laxman Mahadev Kadam : Respondents Shrishall Shakhare Advocate for petitioners Coram : A.A. Sayed,J Date:27.6.2008 P.C. 1. The trial court has rejected the application of the defendant to set aside the order of ’no written statement’ in view of the delay of four years in filing the written statement. However in the impugned order is specifically mentioned that the petitioner was present on every date when the suit was listed. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that petitioner being illiterate he depended upon his advocate completely and he has been very deligent and had instructed his advocate to do all needful in the matter. However from the application it appears that all grounds are not taken in the application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement and setting aside the order of no written statement. 2. In my view the interest of justice will be served if the petitioner is granted liberty to make a -2- fresh application before the trial court within four weeks from today setting out therein all the reasons for which there had been delay in filing the written statement. Order accordingly. 3. The impugned order is thus set aside with liberty granted to the petitioner as aforesaid. The trial court shall hearand decide the application of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of filing of the application. 4. Writ petitition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (A.A. Sayed,J.)