1 WP 3105/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3105 OF 2010 Balraj Parsaram Panjwani .. Petitioner V/s Smt. Meena L. Chand Panjawani & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.N. Tayade for the petitioner. CORAM: D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 26TH JULY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 1 December 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ulhasnagar, rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the written statement. 3. Writ of summons of the suit was served on the petitioner on 10 December 2008. The petitioner did not file the written statement within 30 days and even within the maximum period of 90 days permitted under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”). The Court, 2 WP 3105/10 therefore, by an order dated 21 March 2009 directed the suit to proceed against the petitioner without his written statement. The respondent no.1 thereafter made an application on 16 April 2009 for setting aside the “no W.S. order” and condoning the delay in filing of the written statement. 4. In Kailash v. Nanhku, AIR 2005 SC 2441, the Supreme Court, while holding that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code are not mandatory, cautioned the courts not to extend the time lightly. The Supreme Court has observed: “41. Ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 has to be honoured. The defendant should be vigilant. No sooner the writ of summons is served on him he should take steps for drafting his defence and filing the written statement on the appointed date of hearing without waiting for the arrival of the date appointed in the summons for his appearance in the Court. The extension of time sought for by the defendant from the court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be granted just as a matter of routine and 3 WP 3105/10 merely for asking more so, when the period of 90 days has expired. The extension can be only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the Court to its satisfaction. It must be spelled out that a departure from the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code was being allowed to be made because the circumstances were exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and such extension was required in the interest of justice, and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. 43. The extension of time shall be only by way of exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing, howsoever brief they may be, by the court. In no case, the defendant shall be permitted to seek extension of time when the court is satisfied that it is a case of laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel. The court may impose costs for dual purpose: (i) to deter the defendant from seeking any extension of time just for asking 4 WP 3105/10 and (ii) to compensate the plaintiff for the delay and inconvenience caused to him.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that his sister in law was ill and, therefore, the written statement could not be filed. He invited my attention to the medical certificate issued by Dr. Jagdish P. Choulge, L.C.E.H. to the effect that Mrs. Jyoti Prakash Panjwani was under his treatment for PUO from 30 January 2009 to 12 April 2009. The nature of illness was not explained in the certificate. The application for condonation of delay also does not explain the nature of the illness and how it prevented the present petitioner from pursuing his day to day course including giving instructions to the advocate. It may be noted that the husband of opponent no.2 is also a party to the suit and it is not the case of the petitioner that he was required to look after his sister in law day to day and illness was such that he could not file the written statement. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has made out a good case for condonation of delay in filing of the written statement. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)