IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 18 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 217 OF 2007 SHRI. ROHIDAS S. VOLVOIKAR AND 6 ORS., ... Applicants Versus SHRI. SHRIRAM V. VOLVOIKAR AND 13 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Advocate for Respondents no. 1 to 6. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 16th February, 2008 P.C.: Heard Shri Godinho, the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants and Shri Shirodkar on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 6. 2. This application has been filed for review of the order of this Court dated 20/04/2007 in Writ Petition No. 217 of 2007. The said writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 29/03/2007, by which the learned trial Court rejected the application for adjournment of the said applicants no. 1 to 6 to file the written statement. Learned Counsel on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 6 has brought to the notice of this Court that after the order of this Court dated 20/04/2007, respondents no. 1 to 6, who are the defendants in R.C.S. no.181/06/B had filed another application, which has been rejected by order dated 12/09/2007, which order has again attained finality and the same has not been challenged. In the said order dated 12/09/2007, the learned trial Court has observed that there has been negligence on the part of respondents no. 1 to 7 in not filing the written statement. 3. On behalf of respondents no. 1 to 6 a reply filed by the plaintiffs dated 13/08/2007 has been produced and the said reply shows that on 22/11/2006, the defendants were granted time but on 12/12/2006, they did not ask for any extension of time to file W.S. On 22/11/2006, they had filed an application and the time was granted but again on 15/01/2007, they did not seek any extension to file W.S., likewise on 15/02/2007 and again on 27/02/2007, they did not seek any time for extension of time to file W.S. and on 29/03/2007, the application filed was rightly rejected by the trial Court. 4. Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants/defendants no. 1 to 6 has submitted that this Court in its order dated 20/04/2007 did not consider that on 29/03/2007, the said defendants had given their no objection. Learned Counsel further submits that this Court also did not consider the medical certificate produced, which showed that defendant no. 4 Jyoti was admitted for delivery on 22/03/2007 and was discharged on 30/03/2007. 5. Whether the respondents had given their no objection was of no consequence and what was of consequence was whether the said defendants had shown sufficient cause for extension of time to file the written statement and as noted by this Court, the said application was filed with a cavalier attitude as it was filed on a vague statement that a family member was sick and there was no mention as to who was the family member and no evidence was produced in support of such a statement before the trial Court. That subsequently a certificate was produced on behalf of one of the defendants that one of them was admitted for delivery and was discharged on 30/03/2007 was of no consequence as it would not have come in the way of other defendants to have approached their Advocate and file a written statement. 6. There is no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH