(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10658 OF 2010 Nana s/o. Chokha Gaikwad, Age : 64 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Nilwande, .. Petitioner Taluka : Sangamner, (Original defendant District : Ahmednagar. no.6) versus Sukdeo s/o. Ramji Tapale, .. Respondents Age : 63 years, (Nos.1 to 4 - Occupation : Agriculture, Original plaintiffs R/o. Nilwande, & Taluka : Sangamner, Nos.5 to 17 - District : Ahmednagar, Original defendants) and others. ....................... Mr. R.D. Bhalerao, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Shinde, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Respondent nos.5 to 17 are formal parties. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. The trial court has refused to accept written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after noticing that there was delay of more than 7 years and the same has not been properly explained. 2. Mr. R.D. Bhalerao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has attempted to point out that because of unfortunate accident of the Advocate, there was some delay. 3. Mr. S.K. Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4, has invited attention to the fact that prayer to file written statement was moved before passing of "no written statement" order and it came to be rejected. After rejection thereof, another application vide Exhibit 81 was filed and permission to place written statement on record was sought. It also came to be rejected. Thereafter, instant application at Exhibit 86 came to be filed. He points out that all these events were within knowledge of the petitioner / defendant and no timely steps were taken. (3) 4. It is apparent that non-filing of written statement was within knowledge of the petitioner / defendant on 27-9-2002 itself. The application at Exhibit 86 was moved on 20-4-2010. The trial court has correctly appreciated controversy in the matter. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity with the impugned order. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10658