IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 86 OF 2008 SHRI. SADANAND FONDU SINAI KERKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. GAJANAN VISHWAMBHAR SINAI KERKAR AND 16 ORS., ... Respondents Shri Abhijeet Kamat, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri H. D. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 30th July, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. This is plaintiff's Writ Petition and is directed against Order dated 7-11-2007 of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Ponda by which the learned Civil Judge has allowed the Defendants to file a written statement beyond the period of 90 days. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner/Plaintiff placing reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Pandurang alias Shashi Dessai v. Beraldin Tavaeres(2007(1) Bom.C.R. 296) has submitted that ignorance of law and misunderstanding of procedure could not be a ground for extension of time. Reference is made to the aforesaid Judgment wherein it is stated that the reasons recorded should reflect the circumstances in which the discretion vested is exercised, and a ground such as the Advocate was not available, ignorance of law, the relevant documents were not available or any such ground, which could be termed, as frivolous, could not be a ground for the Court to exercise powers vested in it under the provisions of Rules 1, 9 and 10 of Order 8, C.P.C. for extending time for filing written statement beyond the period prescribed under Rule 1 of Order 8, C.P.C. Since this is a case where the Defendants have been allowed to file a written statement, rightly or wrongly, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned Order in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiciton.(See Abdul Razak(dead) through L.Rs. and others v. Manguesh Rajaram Wagle and others((2010) 2 SCC 432)). Writ Petition therefore is disposed off. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 16-8-2010 at 10.00 a.m. for further proceedings. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.