..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3395 OF 2006 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3395 OF 2006 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3395 OF 2006 Shri.Ashish Premraj Bafana and Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Versus Versus Eknath Babu Lanke and 11 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Rupesh Bobade, Adv. i/b. Mr.Umesh Mankapure, Adv. Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.J.S.Chandnani, Adv. a/w. Abhay Apte, Adv. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2003 came to be filed against the petitioners. In that suit no written statement order came to be passed against the present petitioners on 30.10.2003. Thereafter, application came to be preferred by the petitioners on 30.9.2004. The said application came to be rejected by order dated 15.9.2005. Hence, the present Petition. ..(2).. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the written statement could not be filed within time as they could not obtain necessary documents from Tahsildar, Circle Officer and Sub Registrar within time. He submitted that delay in filing the written statement was not intentional nor was it on account of any negligence on their part. He further submitted that the delay is only that of ten months, hence delay may be condoned. However, it is seen that in support of the said application, the petitioners had filed Xerox copies of deposition of original plaintiff No.1, decision given by the Circle Officer in Case No.138 of 2002 and power of attorney dated 19.3.1991 along with Exhibit.49. Perusal of all these documents show that they were in possession of the petitioners much prior to passing of no-written statement order against them. Xerox copies of deposition of original plaintiff before the Circle Officer, Vadgaon Maval and judgment given by Circle Officer, Vadgaon Maval in Case No.138 of 2002 show that they are the certified copies which were issued on ..(3).. 31.5.2003. Petitioner No.2 who is the father of petitioner No.1, appeared in the proceedings on 28.7.2003 which is seen from Exh.33. No written statement order is passed against the petitioners on 30.10.2003. All these facts show that the reasons stated in the application for delay in filing the written statement are not genuine. The reasons stated in the application do not appear to be correct. Hence, delay has not been satisfactorily explained. No diligence was shown by the petitioners. On the other hand it is a clear case of negligence on the part of the petitioners. Hence the order dated 15.9.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Vadgaon Maval on application at Exh.45 in R.C.S. No.54 of 2003 does not call for any interference. Writ petition is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)