1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 776 OF 2011 Satish Haribhau Jagtap & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus Sojerabai Bapu Shinde & Others ...Respondents Surel Shah for the Petitioner A.A.Joshi for the Respondent CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 18th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Petitioners had filed Regular Civil Suit No.412 of 2002 before the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur. In the said suit respondent no.1 had filed application for interim relief. Petitioners had filed affidavit in reply dated 19.9.2002. The Court in the year 2003 passed “No Written Statement” Order. Thereafter, in the year 2010 the petitioner requested the Court to treat affidavit in reply in the Exhibit 5 application as written statement. That request 2 is rejected by the impugned order dated 12.10.2010. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. In the normal course, treating affidavit in reply as written statement is permissible. But in the present case as No Written Statement Order was passed in the year 2003, such an attempt on the part of the petitioner was rightly declined by the learned Judge. In my view, it was necessary for the petitioner to file appropriate application seeking setting aside the “No Written Statement Order” which was passed in the year 2003. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is required to be dismissed. At the same time, the petitioners can be granted liberty to file appropriate application to have no written statement order set aside. Hence I pass the following order: ORDER i. No interference is required in the impugned order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur. ii. It will be open for the petitioner to file application to have 3 “No Written Statement” Order passed in the year 2003 set aside. Iii. If such an application is filed, same shall be disposed of on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)