IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 115 OF 2010 MR. CAMILO SEBASTIAO NOLASCO MENEZES ... Petitioner Versus MRS. SUSANNA LOBO ... Respondent Mr. N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 11th October, 2010 ORAL ORDER Heard Mr. N. K. Sawaikar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 25.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji in Matrimonial Petition no.20/2008/A by which an application seeking extension of time in filing written statement has been dismissed. The respondent herein filed Matrimonial Petition no. 20/2008/A against the petitioner/defendant. Summons in the mater was served on the defendant on 4.7.2008. Ordinarily the defendant had to file the written statement within 30 days i.e on or before 3.8.2008. Even the maximum period of 90 days for filing the written statement expired on 2.10.2008. The defendant filed an application dated 16.12.2008 seeking condonation of delay of 72 days in filling the written statement on the ground that he was sick and suffering from low backache from 29.10.2008 to 10.11.2008 and as such he could not travel to Pune for procuring the documents which were required by the defendant to file the written statement. The defendant relied upon the medical certificate dated 11.12.2008. The application was objected to by the plaintiff. By impugned Order the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that no ground was made out for granting extension of time for filling written statement. 3. Having heard Mr. Sawaikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel for the respondent, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned Order. The application was filed on 26.12.2008 seeking condonation of delay and extension of time on the ground that petitioner was sick and was suffering from low backache from 29.10.2008 to 10.11.2008. It is pertinent to note that period of 90 days had already expired on 2.10.2008. It is also pertinent to note that the defendant placed on record the written statement, although the documents he wanted to rely were not obtained by him. In my considered opinion the defendant has not made out exceptional case for extension of time for filing the written statement. 4. The Apex Court has consistently held that time to file written statement can be extended beyond 90 days only if exceptional circumstances are made out. See: Kailash Vs. Nanhku, AIR 2005 SC 2241, Saleem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu, Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 and Smt. Rani Kusum Vs. Kanchan Devi and others, AIR 2005 SC 3304. 5. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has not made out any exceptional case for filing the written statement beyond the period of 90 days. The Trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned Order. Hence no case is made out for interference. Consequently the petition stands dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn