1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7444 OF 2009 Masloddin Vikaroddin Kazi .. petitioners Versus Ruknoddin Vikaroddin Kazi .. Respondent. --- Mr. M.D.Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 13th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 4th September, 2009 vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for setting aside the No W.S. Order came to be rejected. 2] From the perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that the suit summons was served on the petitioner .e. the defendant No.3 on 21st March, 2006. Appearance was put in by the petitioner on 7th April, 2006 through Advocate Shri J.S. Pathan, R.J. Pathan and Advocate J.R. Jadhav. Thereafter, 5 adjournments were sought on behalf of the petitioner for filing written statement. Ultimately, since no written statement was filed within a period of 90 days after receipt of the suit summons, No W.S. Order came to 2 be passed. The application for setting aside the NO W.S. Order came to be filed on 4th September, 2008. The same is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court ought to have taken into consideration that the application could not be filed earlier for the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. He submits that the earlier Advocate who was engaged by the petitioner, was suffering from Blood Cancer and, as such, the petitioner was not aware about the proceedings. 4] The trial court has found that alongwith Advocate Shri J.S. Pathan, two other Advocates, namely, R.J. Pathan and J.R. Jadhav have also put in their appearances on behalf of the petitioner. It has also been found that the present petitioner/defendant No.3, during the intervening period, had contested the application for appointment of court commissioner and had suffered orders below Exh.51 and 77. However, no steps were taken for setting aside the No W.S. Order. 5] From the record, it can also be seen that since Advocate Shri J. S. Pathan, Advocate expired on 18/1/2008, no steps are taken for setting aside the NO W.S. Order till 4th September, 2008. It is a settled law that though amendment to CPC does not take away jurisdiction of the court to permit written statement being placed on record after a period of 90 days. 3 However, this could be done only when exceptional circumstances and cases of extreme hardship are pointed out by the defendant. In the present case, there is a delay of 2 years and 2 months in filing the written statement, which is not sufficiently explained. In that view of the matter, I do not find any perversity in the approach adopted by the trial court in finding that the delay has not been properly explained. No case is made out for interference in the order impugned. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-