1 wp5135.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION No. 5135 OF 2011 1. Ganpati S/o Lingappa Bellale, Age : 74 years, Occ : Agril., R/o Sawargaon (Rokda), Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 2. Anandrao S/o Ganpati Bellale, Age : 42 years, Occ : Agril., R/o As above. 3. Satyawan S/o Anandrao Bellale, age : 17 years, Minor U/g of His real mother Shobha W/o Anandrao Bellale, Age : 40 years, Occ : Household, R/o As above. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- 1. Seema d/o Pratviraj Bellale, age : 19 years, Occ : Education, R/o Sawargaon (Rokda), Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 2. Sanjay S/o Ganpati Bellale, Age : 38 years, Occ : Agril., R/o as above. 3. Subhidrabai W/o Pratviraj Bellale, Age : 43 years, Occ : Household, R/o as above. 4. Shital w/o Somnath Dharashive, age : 25 years, Occ : Household, R/o Almala, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 5. Sumit S/o Pratviraj Bellale, age : 22 years, Occ : Education, R/o Sawargaon (Rokda), Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 6. Mahananda w/o Suryakant Bellale, age : 40 years, Occ : Household, R/o as above. ..RESPONDENTS 2 wp5135.11 ...... Shri J.R. Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Shri. G.V. Sukale, advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Shri. M.L. Dharashive, advocate for respondent no.4. ...... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 5th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, this Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioners are the original defendants. The respondents filed the suit for partition and separate possession. The petitioners were served with the suit summons on 23rd February, 2011 and they appeared in the Court on 24th February, 2011. The trial Court allowed the application Exhibit-46 filed by the petitioners seeking time to file written statement on 30th April, 2011 and the next date was kept by the trial Court as 13.06.2011. On 13.06.2011, the petitioners filed written statement, however, the trial Judge refused to accept the written statement on the ground that it is after lapse of 90 days. The petitioners have assail the said order in the present Writ Petition. 3. Shri.J.R. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners 3 wp5135.11 submits that in fact the Court had granted time till 30th April, 2011 and the 90 days lapsed in vacation and the written statement is filed on the date, which was given by the trial Court. On 30th April, 2011, the Court itself gave the next date for filing written statement as 13.06.2011 and on the said date, the written statement was filed. As such the Court committed an error in rejecting the application Exhibit-48. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3-Original plaintiffs strongly opposes the Petition and submits that in any case the written statement was not filed within 90 days and the Court was justified in rejecting the same. The vacation came to an end on 6th June, 2011 and therefore, there was no impediment for the petitioners to file written statement on 7th June, 2011. As the petitioners failed to file the same, the order of the trial Court can not be faulted with. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the Roznama. On 30th April, 2011, an application was given by the petitioners seeking time to file written statement. The trial Court allowed the said application and gave time to the petitioner to file written statement upto 13th June, 2011. On 13th June, 2011, the petitioners filed written statement. When the 4 wp5135.11 petitioners had filed the written statement on the scheduled date i.e. the date given by the trial Court itself, then it is not within the jurisdiction of the Court to reject the same on the count that 90 days expired. 90 days expired in vacation. Taking into account the same, the Court has given next date as 13th June, 2011. On the said date the written statement was filed by the petitioners. As such, it was erroneous on the part of the trial Court to reject the said application. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses `B' and `C'. No costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp 5135.11