IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6082 OF 2008 The Chinar Co-op.Society Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Divesh Chamboowala for Petitioner. Mr.Q.M.Ashfaq for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. JANUARY 13, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The question is: whether the explanation offered by the Petitioner for not filing written statement for over more than one and a half years after the suit summons was served, can be said to be special and exceptional situation so as to condone the delay in filing the written statement and recall the order of no written statement dated 25th June 2008. In my opinion, no fault can be : 2 : found with the approach of the Court below in taking the view that the grounds pressed into service cannot be accepted as special and exceptional circumstance. The view so taken is a proper view founded on material on record. No interference with the said approach is warranted. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submits that besides the ground that the Manager of the Society met with an accident, other contentions were raised which have not been adverted to. Assuming that the other contention now raised before this Court is to be entertained, even that will have to be stated to be rejected. The argument is that the Petitioner was diligently contesting Notice of Motion for injunction taken out by the Plaintiff. The fact that the Petitioner was diligently contesting the said Motion, does not take the matter any further. That does not absolve the Petitioner/Defendant to file his written statement within statutory period and more so within the period specified in the summons served on the Petitioner. : 3 : 4. It is not in dispute that the summons was served on the Petitioner as back as on 16th June 2006. The Petitioner made appearance before the Trial Court on various dates till 25th June 2008 when the no written statement order came to be passed. The argument of the Petitioner that the matter was not listed for filing of written statement on any of the dates on which it was listed before the Court, will have to be stated to be rejected. As aforesaid, the Petitioner was obliged to file the written statement within the statutory period and more so, within the time limit provided in the writ of summons served on the Petitioner. It cannot be overlooked that the Petitioner had the assistance and was acting under the instructions of the Advocate engaged by the Petitioner. The Advocate was expected to advise the Petitioner, even if the Petitioner did not realise the seriousness of the service of the suit of summons. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Court below in dismissing the said application. : 4 : Dismissed. 6. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner may consider of questioning the correctness of this order before the Apex Court for which it be clarified that the Trial Court may not precipitate the matter for some reasonable time. There is no difficulty in accepting this request. It is ordered that the Trial Court shall not precipitate the matter for a period of four weeks from today. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.