Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8177 of 2007 Shri Bandu Yashwant Shingate & anr. ..Petitioners V/s. Shri Jagannath Mahipati Shingate & ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pratap Patil for the petitioners. Mr. P.G.Karande for respondent nos. 1 and 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. . Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. No fault can be found with the view taken by the Trial Court in rejecting the application preferred by the defendants 6 & 7 (petitioners) for recall of no written-statement order dated 31st August, 2006. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the argument of the petitioners, that the reason for which indulgence has been shown to defendant no.1 for recall of no written-statement order dated 21-8-2006 applied even in case of petitioners, is clearly misplaced. In that, the reason given by defendant no.1 was that there was bereavement in the family of defendant no.1 in the month of July/August 2006 which the Trial Court in its descrition has considered to be sufficient and extraordinary situation. That reason is not available 2 to the petitioners. In as much as, the application filed by the petitioners, a vague statement has been made that the petitioners could not file written-statement within time granted by the Court in terms of order dated 28-3-2006 because the petitioners could not collect necessary information within that time and that there was bereavement in the family of the advocate. Be that as it may, no material facts in that behalf have been spelt out in the application at all. 2. In so far as the ground given in the application that the petitioners were not able to collect necessary information within specified time, nothing is mentioned as to which information could not be collected by the petitioners which was necessary to be mentioned in the written-statement. Besides, it is not mentioned as to when that information was infact collected by the petitioners and made over to their Advocate. The second ground mentioned in the application about demise in the family of the Advocate, no details thereof have been provided. No affidavit of Advocate is placed on record. The fact remains that no written-statement order was passed in presence of the petitioners on 31st August, 2006 but the petitioners chose to file application only on 9-2-2007. There is absolutely no explanation given in the application as to what prevented the petitioners to take out the said application immediately after 3 31-8-2006 and instead waited for over six months to file the same. 3. Taking any view of the matter, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Trial Court that the explanation offered by the petitioners is not exceptional circumstance to exercise discretionary power of the Court which is the law now well established. Hence, this petition is devoid of merits. . Petition Dismissed. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]