1 WP No.301/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.301 of 2011 Shri Chintaman Gajanan Velkar ... Petitioner versus M/s.Dhirenda Iron & Steel Works & Ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.Birendra Saraf with Ms.Jyoti Ghag i/b Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the petitioner. Ms.M.S.Salekar i/b N.R.Bubna for respondent no.4. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 2nd August 2011 P.C. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 3 September 2010 passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Thane rejecting the application of the petitioner (defendant no.1) for condonation of delay of 2308 days in filing of the written statement and setting aside the ex-parte order. 2. The petitioner is defendant no.1 in the suit (Regular Civil Suit No.814/98). Writ of summons was served on the petitioner before 7 January 2000. The petitioner filed the appearance in the 2 WP No.301/11 suit through an advocate jointly engaged by himself and defendant no.2 on 7 January 2000. Thereafter, he did not file a written statement for two years and finally on 8 April 2002, the trial court passed an order that the suit would proceed without the written statement of the petitioner and adjourned the suit for ex-parte hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner kept quiet for several years and on 28 July 2010, moved the court for setting aside the ex-parte order and permission to file the written statement. By an order dated 3 September 2010, the trial court rejected the application. That order is impugned in the present petition. 3. The only reason given by the petitioner in his application for setting aside ex-parte order is that the petitioner and defendant no.2 had engaged a common advocate and that defendant no.2 contacted the petitioner and informed him that their advocate had not filed the written statement. If the petitioner had engaged an advocate, may be common with defendant no.2, it was equally his responsibility to contact his advocate and to ensure that the written statement was filed. He could not have waited for 10 years and without approaching his advocate to file the written statement. The case smacks up of a gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner as an owner of the property had entered into an agreement with one M/s.Asha Kiran Pvt.Ltd and that on account of the differences with it the petitioner had filed a suit against M/s.Asha Kiran Pvt.Ltd bearing Suit No.4104 of 2000. That suit was settled on 16 October 2000. Assuming that M/s.Asha Kiran had 3 WP No.301/11 any connection with defendant no.2, there was no reason for the petitioner not to approach his advocate after 16 October 2000 for a period of over 10 years. There is no merit in the petition. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)