spb/- 1 wp9071-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9071 OF 2010 1. Shri Satyakumar Sudhayee Singh & Ors. ... Petitioners. Vs. Bhimabai vithal Mhatre,since deceased through her heirs : 1/1 Arun Vithal Mhatre & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. Piyush N. Shah for the Petitioners. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 22nd October, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge,Sr. Dvn., Vasai, rejecting their application for setting aside “No WS” order and refusing the permission to file written statement belatedly. 2 The suit was originally instituted against the petitioners in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghar and was numbered as Civil Suit No. 145 of 1998. The summons was served on the petitioners some time in February, 1999 and the petitioners filed their appearance in the court spb/- 2 wp9071-10.sxw through an Advocate on 18th February, 1999 (Exh. 14). On establishment of the court of Civil Judge,Senior Division at Vasai, the suit was transferred from the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghar to the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasai some time in the year 2007 and consequenlty re-numbered as Special Civil Suit no. 52/2007 at Vasai. The petitioners did not file their written statement in the Palghar Court and therefore, “No WS” order was passed against them and the suit was directed to proceed without the written statement. On 16th October, 2010 the petitioners made an application to the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Vasai for setting aside the order of “No WS” and for permission to file the written statement. By the impugned order that application was rejected. 3 In Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors. (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480, the Supreme Court while holding that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC (W.S. to be filed within 30 days and latest within the period of 90 days) are directory and not mandatory has cautioned that the decision should not be misunderstood as nullifying the entire life and vigour of the said provision. The trial court should not indiscriminately grant extension of time to file the written statement. The extension of the time beyond 30 days or 90 days, as case may be, should not be granted as a matter of routine and for asking. The extension can be only spb/- 3 wp9071-10.sxw be an exception and for reasons assigned by defendant and also recorded in writing by the court to its satisfaction. 4 In the present case, the petitioners have mentioned in their application two reasons for not filing the written statement in time. Firstly, it is contended that they filed reply to the application for injunction and thereafter, their lawyer did not inform them about the requirement of filing the written statement. Second reason is that the petitioners were on and off going to out of town for business and therefore, they could not file the written statement in time. In my view both the reasons are not satisfactory. Either of the reasons could not have prevented the petitioners from not filing written statement for a period of over 10 years from 18th February, 1999 till 16th October, 2010 when they made application for permission to file written statement. 5 In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Judge has committed any error, much less a manifest error, requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]