1 WP 1148/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2011 Jain Sahakari Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s Asit Dhankumar Zaveri & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.M. Gaonkar for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 15th March 2010 passed by the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, rejecting the application of the petitioner to file the written statement. 3. Summons of the suit was served on the petitioner bank on 23rd March 2006. The petitioner did not appear and did not file the written statement. The Court therefore decided to proceed exparte against the petitioner. After a lapse of 4 years and 141 days, the petitioner appeared in the Court and made an application for permission to file the written statement. By the impugned order, the application was rejected. 2 WP 1148/2011 4. It is alleged in the petition that the Deputy CEO Mr. Suresh Mallya, who was looking after the legal matters, had resigned and the papers were mixed up with other suit and therefore the petitioner could not appear and file the written statement. Before the trial Court, it was contended that there was no entry in the inward and outward registers about the receipt of the suit summons and the summons was not duly served. This was disbelieved by the Court on the ground that inward and outward registers were not produced. In fact, it is the case of the petitioner that the suit summons along with a copy of the plaint was discovered by the petitioner while searching for other files. If so, admittedly the suit summons with the plaint were delivered to the petitioner by the Court bailiff and therefore the contention that there was no entry in the inward and outward registers and suit summons was not duly served has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. In any event, the view taken by the trial Court that sufficient cause was not made out for condoning the delay of over 4 years in filing of the written statement is a possible view and requires no interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)