1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.589 OF 2007. 1. Shri Prabha Pundalik Naik P.O. Reis Magos, Tinto waddo, Nerul, Bardez, Goa. 2. Shri Ramesh Pundalik Naik, H. No.361, P.O. Reis, Magos, Tinto waddo, Nerul, Bardez, Goa. .. Petitioners. Versus 1. Shri Uday Pundalik Naik, r/o. H. No.494/1, P.O. Reis Magos, Tinto Vaddo, Nerul, Bardez, Goa. 2. Shri Dyaneshwar Pundalik Naik, H. No.495, P.O. Reis Magos, Tinto vaddo, Nerul, Bardez, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Gaonkar, Advocate for the respondent No.1. None present for the respondent No.2, though served. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date of reserving the Order :- 27 th November, 2008. Date of Pronouncing the Order : - 1 st December, 2008. ORDER : 1. The petitioners take exception to the order dated 2 16.06.2007 and 01.10.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No.127/2006. The respondent No.1 filed the suit against the petitioners and respondent No.2 in the year 2006. Summons was issued to the defendants on 21/07/2006. After service of summons, initially the matter was referred for conciliation which ultimately failed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the order dated 03.04.2007. The petitioner did not file written statement till 16.06.2007 on which day, the petitioner placed the written statement and counterclaim on record. The Trial Court did not take the same on record on the ground that it was filed beyond the period prescribed under Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for review of the order dated 16.06.2007 and to extend the time to take written statement and counterclaim on record. The same came to be dismissed by order dated 01.10.2007. Aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have made out exceptional case for filing the written statement and counterclaim beyond the period of 90 days in as much as the petitioners had filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and till the said application was 3 disposed of, the petitioners were not expected to file the written statement and counterclaim. According to the learned Counsel, the Trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioners to file the written statement and counterclaim beyond the period of 90 days considering the fact that the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, was decided on 03.04.2007 and the written statement and counterclaim was filed on 16.06.2007. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sardessai relied upon judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Narayan Gaonkar and Another Versus Sudhakar Chodankar and Another dated 24.04.2008 in Writ Petition No.575/2008. 3. Per contra, Mr. Goankar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioners have not made out exceptional circumstances to justify filing of the written statement and counterclaim beyond the period of 90 days. He further submitted that at no point of time the petitioners had filed an application seeking extension of time to file the written statement and counterclaim. According to the learned Counsel, ordinarily, the written statement and counterclaim has to be filed within 30 days and for justifiable reason, time can be extended upto the maximum period of 90 days and thereafter, in only exceptional circumstances, the Court can permit the party to file written statement. According to the learned Counsel, no exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioners and, 4 therefore, no interference is called for by this Court with the impugned orders. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pandurang Dessai Versus Beraldin Tavares reported in 2006(6) AIR Bom R 604. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that this is not fit case in which this Court should exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The records disclose that at no point of time, the petitioners filed an application seeking extension of time and even after the order dated 03.04.2007 was passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, no application was filed seeking extension of time, but on the contrary without filing such an application and obtaining the order from the Court, the petitioners sought to place on record the written statement and counterclaim. In so far as the judgment in the case of Narayan Gaonkar and Another Versus Sudhakar Chodankar and Another dated 24.04.2008 in Writ Petition No.575/2008 is concerned, the same does not advance the case of the petitioners in as much as in the present case, even after the dismissal of the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code by the order dated 03.04.2007, the petitioners waited for a period of more than two months 5 and without seeking an order from the Court, sought to place on record the written statement and counterclaim. Moreover instead of challenging the order dated 16.06.2007, the petitioners filed an application seeking recall/review of the said order which was absolutely not warranted. Mr. Gaonkar is justified in placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Pandurang Dessai's case (supra) in which the learned Judge has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kailash Versus Nanhku and others reported in (2005)4 SCC 480 in which the Apex Court has held that filing of the written statement within the prescribed time, should be a rule and the departure would be only by way of an exception and the same cannot be granted as a matter of routine merely for asking specially when the period of 90 days had expired. The ratio laid down in the case of Kailash, is squarely applicable in the present case. No exceptional circumstances have been made out by the petitioners. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioners clearly disentitles the petitioners from invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, the petition is summarily rejected. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA