1 (WP 5899 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5899 OF 2010 Mohammed Rafique Mohammed Yusuf Ansari ...Petitioner Vs. Mohammed Saleem Abdul Salam and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Minal Parab and Mr.M.B. Gawde and Petitioner Mr.Rajesh Parab with Mr. D.S. Sawand for Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 29th June, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dated 29.6.2010. By the said order, the Trial Court rejected the application filed by the Petitioner to permit him to file a written statement. 3. Brief facts are that the suit filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs for eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and bonafide requirement. Suit summons was served on 13.1.2009. Appearance was 2 (WP 5899 of 2010) filed by the Petitioner/Defendant in February, 2009. Period of 90 days expired on 11th April, 2009. Thereafter, the Trial Court passed and order on 30th September, 2009 directing that the case should proceed ex-parte against the Defendant. Therefore, an application was filed on 16th September, 2009 for setting aside the said order and permitting the Defendant to file his written statement. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner could not get in touch with his advocate; and secondly, since the office of his advocate has undergone renovation, the brief was not traceable and, therefore, the application could not be filed for taking the written statement on record. The Trial Court has observed that even after the amendment of the plaint, the Defendant did not care to file his written statement in time. The Trial Court has also observed that the reasons given for not filing the written statement does not appear to be genuine or reliable. The Trial Court has further observed that the detailed reply of the Plaintiffs discloses the careless and callous attitude of the Defendant in proceeding the application. The Trial Court has also observed that the Defendant had tried to blame his advocate without giving due particulars. 3 (WP 5899 of 2010) 5. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended and period of limitation was prescribed in filing the written statement in order to ensure that the Defendant is not permitted to protract the proceedings. The Apex Court in several cases has observed that application for condonation of delay should not be casually granted unless there are cogent reasons given in the application. 6. In my view, the Trial Court has given cogent reasons for rejected the said application and, therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, Writ petition is dismissed and disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)