IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1767 OF 2009 Henry Peter Pesso ...Petitioner V/s. Margaret Chhotubhai Kamani & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.M.C.Shah i/b Mr.R.R.Sharma for Petitioner. Mr.Y.H.Vora for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 27, 2009. FEBRUARY 27, 2009. FEBRUARY 27, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. No interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted in the fact situation of the present case. It is not in dispute that in the first place, ex-parte decree was passed against the Petitioner, which, however was set-aside in terms of order dated 25th November 2003. In the same order, the Petitioner was directed to file written statement on or before 15th December 2003. : 2 : 3. Inspite of such peremptory direction given by the Court while setting aside the ex-parte decree, if the Petitioner has not bothered to file written statement till 2008 and desires to do so only after the evidence of the Defendant is recorded, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Court below that no indulgence can be shown to such litigant. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that rejection of Notice of Motion for condonation of delay in filing written statement is a harsh order passed against the Petitioner. Instead, the Petitioner/Defendant should be put to certain terms by imposing cost. 5. It is well established position that written statement has to be filed within statutory period. More so, in the present case, in terms of the order passed by the Court while showing indulgence to the Petitioner. If the Petitioner has not bothered to avail of such opportunity, no : 3 : further indulgence can be shown to such litigant. Hence, dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.