-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.874 of 2008 Hoogly Ink Company (Bombay) Ltd. ..Petitioner vs. 1. Madhusudan Brijlal Vakharia and others ..Respondents Shri R.M.Haridas for petitioner. Shri Hiralal Thacker,Sr.Advocate i/b Shri S.J.Daruwala for respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 8th February, 2008 8th February, 2008 8th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Trial Court on 29th January, 2008 on application (Exh.141) in RAE and R Suit No.1340/4212 of 1987. 2. The request of the petitioner who is original defendant no.32 in the said suit is that the Trial Court has refused to grant time to the petitioner to file written statement. 3. The petitioner claims to be a tenant in respect of the suit premises and further claims to be in possession prior to 1st February, 1973. The suit has been filed by respondent nos.1 to 3 against the petitioner for possession, amongst -2- others on several grounds. 4. In para 3 of this writ petition itself, the petitioner says that written statement was ready on 16th January, 2008 and, therefore, time was sought to tender the same. The learned Judge to whom the suit has been assigned has disbelieved the petitioner and even the version that the earlier Advocate did not inform the petitioner about the pendency of the suit or compromise therein arrived at with some of the defendants. The petitioner was not aware of the earlier suit till 30th August, 2005 is also the reason which is disbelieved. 5. Upon perusal of the application to tender the written statement, the response thereto of the original plaintiff and the impugned order, I am satisfied that the learned Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the prayer. Assuming without admitting that the amended Code of Civil Procedure does not apply and earlier direction enabling the Court to take the written statement on record at any stage, yet it is apparent that the suit has proceeded upto the stage where recording of evidence is completed and the matter is set down for arguments. That -3- aspect is not disputed before me either. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge which refuses to take the written statement on record in the suit filed in the year 1987. Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)