1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1169 OF 2010 Kisan Atmaram Salgare ...Petitioner vs. Nanubai Uttam Salgare & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Sameer A.Kumbhakoni for the petitioner Mr.Ashok Tajane for the respondent nos.1 to 3 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 28, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent. An order was passed on 29 th August 2008 to proceed with the suit without written statement of the petitioner. By the impugned order, an application praying for setting aside the said order has been rejected. 2 It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent that by registered sale deed dated 28 th August 2008, the petitioner has sold the suit property to a third party. A true copy of the sale deed is annexed to the affidavit. It is not in dispute that the said sale deed has been executed by the petitioner. 3 The suit is governed by rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 as amended on 1 st July 2002. As stated earlier, order to proceed without written statement was passed on 29 th August 2008 and the present application was filed by the petitioner on 14 th September 2 2009. In the said application, the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that on 28 th August 2008, the sale deed in respect of the suit property was executed by him. On expiry of time provided under Rule 1 of Order VIII, the Court can permit the filing of written statement only if a case of extraordinary circumstances is made out. It is contended in the application that the petitioner was not aware that it was necessary to file written statement. It is contended that the petitioner was not well and due to financial difficulty, he could not file written statement. A copy of the sale deed is placed on record which shows that the petitioner had received substantial amount of Rs.1,33,000/- by way of consideration. It is obvious that what is stated in the application is not bonafide. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. Material facts were suppressed by the petitioner while making the said application at Exhibit-26. 4 No case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. The petitioner has already deposited costs of Rs.5000/- payable to the first respondent. The first respondent is entitled to the said amount as the petitioner suppressed the fact of execution of sale deed. The first respondent is entitled to withdraw the same. JUDGE 3