1 CRA 1042/10 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1042 OF 2010 M/s Arena Multimedia .. Applicant V/s M/s Computapro .. Respondent Mr. S.C. Shah i/b Shah Legal for the applicant. Mr. A.S. Davar with Mr. Sayeed Mulani i/b Mulani & Co. for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 22ND DECEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. By consent taken up for hearing finally. Heard. 2. This revision application is directed against an order dated 26th November 2009 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, rejecting the application made by the revision applicant (for short “the applicant”) for setting aside of “no written statement order” (for short “no ws order”) and for permission to file the written statement. 3. In my view, the revision application is not maintainable. 2 CRA 1042/10 Proviso to section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) says that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order made, except where the order, if were to be made in favour of the party applying for the revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. If the order on the applicant’s application for setting aside of “no ws order” were to be made in favour of the applicant, he would have been granted permission to file the written statement and that would put an end to the suit. In the circumstances, the revision application is not maintainable. Even otherwise, on merits I am not satisfied that no case has been made out for setting aside of the “no ws order”. 4. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Zolba v. Keshao, 2008 (3) Bom. C.R. 1, counsel for the applicant submitted that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code are not mandatory and the Court is empowered to extend time to file written statement beyond 90 days. Counsel also relied upon a decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Vivek Lt. R.T. Mokadam v. Kiran S.K. Nishine, 2007 (5) Bom. C.R. 496. 5. In Kailash v. Nanhku, AIR 2005 SC 2441, a three Judges 3 CRA 1042/10 Bench of the Supreme Court while holding that the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code are directory has cautioned the Courts against indiscriminate use of the discretion in extending the time for filing the written statement beyond the statutory period of 30/90 days. The Supreme Court has observed that the decision should not be construed to take away the very life and vigour of the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code. Time to file the written statement beyond the statutory period of 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, can be extended only in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. In the present case, no exceptional circumstances have been shown. On the contrary, the facts narrated below would show a gross negligence on the part of the applicant. 6. The suit was filed against the applicant in the year 2001. Summons was served on the applicant some time in the year 2003 or earlier. An exparte decree was passed on 12th February 2004. On the application of the applicant, the exparte decree was set aside and the suit was restored to file on 24th November 2006. Even thereafter the applicant did not file the written statement and “no ws order” was again passed on 22nd September 2008. On 8th July 2009, an application was made for setting aside the “no ws order”. The aforesaid events speak for 4 CRA 1042/10 themselves and they clearly show not only a gross negligence but perhaps an attempt on the part of the applicant to protract the litigation. 7. For these reasons, no case is made out for condonation of delay in filing of the written statement. The revision application is accordingly rejected with costs which are quantified at Rs.2,000/-. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)