-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5902 OF 2008 Abdul Hussain Taherbhai Gandhi .. Petitioner. V/s. Shabbir Taherbhai Patanwala .. Respondent. --- Mr. N.P.Shimpi for the Petitioner. --- CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR,J. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The grievance of the petitioner that service of summons was effected on incorrect address is a misplaced grievance. This is so because it is common ground that the petitioner entered his appearance before the trial court on 21st of April, 2008. In view of the said appearance, the argument of non-service of summons on the correct address is unavailable to the petitioner. -: 2 :- Besides, the record clearly indicates that the petitioner was granted time to file written statement, which was not filed by the petitioner. That order was passed as back as on 23rd April, 2008. Eventually the trial court passed the order of no written statement on 24th June, 2008. Against that order the petitioner chose to file application on 9th of July, 2008 for recall of the said order. However, no explanation is forthcoming as to what had prevented the petitioner to file the written statement within the statutory time and in any case within the time granted by the court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to rely on the reported decisions of the apex court. However, the established legal position is that the written statement is required to be filed within the specified time that was granted. It is only in an exceptional situation the court would exercise discretion to condone the lapse. As no exceptional situation was pointed out and the only ground pressed into service before the lower court was of old age of the petitioner, which cannot be, as rightly held by the lower court, an exceptional situation. That reasoning given by the lower court is appropriate in the fact situation of the present case, more particularly where the petitioner made his appearance before the court on 21st April, 2008 and chose -: 3 :- not to file written statement in time much less in time extended by the court for that matter. 4. Hence, no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is warranted. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.) .....