IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 534 OF 2008 SMT. SAPNA M. GAZINKAR ... Petitioner Versus CHANDRAKANT UTTAM CHODANKAR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 4th December, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr. Padiyar at length for the petitioner and Mr. Mulgaonkar for the respondents. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/defendant no.1 (a) in Regular Civil Suit No.42/2006, pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa assails the order dated 31.01.2008 by which, the application filed by the petitioner seeking leave to file written statement has been rejected. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find that the Trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Nankhu's case reported in (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 480 and rejected the application seeking leave to file written statement which was filed almost after one year from the date of passing of the order, granting time to the petitioner to file written statement. In my opinion, no exceptional circumstances as required in terms of order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code has been made out by the petitioner. Hence there is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. Hence the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.