SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5410 OF 2008 Shri Arvind Sandipan Gejage ...Petitioner Versus Smt.Sindhu Ramesh Gejage & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh for Petitioner. Mr.P.S.Dani for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 14, 2008. AUGUST 14, 2008. AUGUST 14, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. No interference with the conclusion reached by the Court below that the Petitioner failed to make out any exceptional circumstance so as to show indulgence to condone the delay in filing written statement or to take his written statement on record is warranted. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was served with the : 2 : summons on 2nd February 2007. After service, as he could not file written statement in time, he moved the Court for further time by way of three separate applications which were entertained and order was passed in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was lastly granted time to file written statement on or before 11th June 2007 in terms of order dated 5th April 2007. Inspite of that last opportunity, the Petitioner did not chose to file written statement nor moved the Court for further extension of time. Eventually, the matter was listed on 9th July 2007 when the Court passed order of no written statement and proceeded with the Suit. It is only thereafter on 18th July 2007, the Petitioner filed application for recalling the order of no written statement and to permit the Petitioner to tender the written statement and to take the same on record. 3. Keeping these facts in mind, it is more than clear that no sufficient cause has been made out by the Petitioner for showing indulgence to the Petitioner and departing from the normal rule of written statement to be filed in specified time. : 3 : The argument of the Petitioner that there was some unfortunate situation in the family of the Advocate for the Petitioner on 2nd July 2007, will be of no avail to the Petitioner. This is so because the Petitioner was required to file written statement on or before 11th June 2007 in terms of order dated 5th April 2007. No explanation is forthcoming as to what prevented the Petitioner to file the written statement before the said date. The events that unfolded after that date will be of no relevance and more particularly about unfortunate situation happening in the family of the Advocate for the Petitioner on 2nd July 2007. That event can, at best, explain the absence of Advocate on 9th July 2007 when no written statement order came to be passed.The fact remains that the Petitioner did not file written statement in terms of order dated 5th April 2007 inspite of indulgence shown by the Court from time to time on three different occasions. 4. In the circumstances, not a case for showing further indulgence to the Petitioner, as no sufficient cause has been made out. Hence, : 4 : dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.