-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7078 OF 2007 Rajesh Batra The Trustee of F.E.Dinshaw Trust : Petitioner V/s. Harischandra Pandurang Keni & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Pravin Samdani with Mr.Sunil Trivedi i/b. Mr.K.D.Abichandani for the petitioner. Mr.M.V.Kanade for respondent nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2008. P.C. 1. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, has challenged the order of the City Civil Court accepting the respondents’ Written Statement on record and setting aside its earlier order to proceed without Written Statement dated 17.8.2000 and condoning the delay of about eight years. There is no doubt that there has been gross delay on the part of the respondents in presenting their Written Statement. The suit is of 1985 and in spite of having waived service and several opportunities since then, the respondents failed to file their Written Statement and, as -: 2 :- a result of which, the Court decided to proceed without Written Statement on 24.7.2000. However, the reason for this delay, which has been accepted by the trial Court as a fact is that their Advocate did not advise them to file Written Statement or prepare the Written Statement even though he represented that he would take reasonable care in the above suit and assured them that appropriate steps would be taken in the matter. Thus, relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Rafic v. Munishilal (AIR 1981 SC 1480), the Court has condoned the delay and has accepted the Written Statement. 2. Mr.Samdani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, urged this Court to interfere with the aforesaid finding of fact that the defendants did not file Written Statement because of the inaction on the part of their Advocate on the ground that the affidavit of the Advocate has not been filed nor has he been impleaded as a party to the application. It is true that this is so, but it is not possible to lay down an invariable rule that in all such cases, a litigant’s case cannot be accepted without corresponding affidavit of the Advocate or can be accepted only if the Advocate is a party to the proceedings. It depends on the facts of each case. In the present case, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the defendants had sufficient cause for not filing the -: 3 :- Written Statement in time. Indeed, having regard to the nature of the decree they might face, it is unlikely that they would not resist the suit by filing a Written Statement, but for a mistake on the part of the Advocate. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 3. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.