1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3089 of 2008 Smt.Bharati Kashinath Suryawanshi and others .. Petitioners versus Smt.Asha Subhash Aroskar .. Respondent ... Mr.P.K. Vyas for the petitioners. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 18th July 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the view taken by the trial court that the petitioner defendants have taken out Notice of Motion on 18th January 2008 for permission to file written statement much after the order of No written statement passed on 3rd December 2007 and at any rate, after expiry of 2 90 days from the date of service of summons. The petitioner had disputed before the trial court about the factum of service of writ of summons. The trial court however has recorded as of fact on the basis of record before it that the summons was accepted by the defendant no.1 for herself and her husband on 21st September 2007 as per the endorsement found thereon. Once it is held that summons was duly served on 21st September 2007, defendants were expected to file written statement on record within 30 days from the date of service and in any case before expiry of 90 days. The defendants did not chose to do that and waited till the order of "No written statement" came to be passed by the trial court on 3rd December 2007. 3. As aforesaid, after the expiry of 90 days petitioners took out application (Notice of Motion) for permitting them to place the written statement on record only on 18th January 2008, which is the reason recorded by the trial court for its inability to entertain the request made by the petitioners, no fault can be found with the said opinion of the trial court. 4. Counsel for the petitioner would however contend that the summons which was served on the petitioner did not spell out the period during which 3 written statement was required to be filed. However, no such grievance was made before the trial court. No such stand is stated on affidavit filed before the trial court. This ground is pressed for the first time which cannot be entertained in exercise of writ jurisdiction especially when the court below has found that the plea taken by the petitioner defendant that they were not served with the summons is a false plea. Such litigant cannot deserve any sympathy or indulgence of the court. 5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the averments in paragraph no.22 of the affidavit filed before the trial court ascribable to the later contention. The said averments are of no avail to the petitioners to get over the finding that no specific plea in this behalf is found in the affidavit. Moreover, the fact remains that this contention was not pressed at all before the trial court. 6. Hence, dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)