GANESH GOVIND BANSODE THROUGH GPA RUPALI GANESH BANSODEversusPRALHAD JAGANNATH KALE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:7866
                                           (1)                      wp-927-2026.odt



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                             WRIT PETITION NO.927 OF 2026
                   GANESH GOVIND BANSODE THROUGH GPA RUPALI
                                   GANESH BANSODE
                                         VERSUS
                       PRALHAD JAGANNATH KALE AND OTHERS
                                            ...
               Mr. Amol Subhash Gandhi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                                            …
                                    CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                    DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2026.
               FINAL ORDER.:-

               1.    The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated

               22.12.2025 passed below Exhibit-95 by Joint Civil Judge Senior

               Division, Beed in Regular Civil Suit No.87/2013, whereby

               petitioner’s application for setting aside ‘no written statement’

               order has been rejected.


               2.    The petitioner is defendant no.3 in Regular Civil Suit

               No.87/2013. He was served with suit summons. However, failed to

               cause his appearance and file written statement within time

               prescribed. Eventually, on 26.06.2013, ‘no written statement’ order

               has been passed against him below Exhibit-1.             Thereafter,

               defendant no.3 appeared before Trial Court and filed an application

               vide Exhibit-26 to set aside ‘no written statement’ order, which was

               allowed subject to cost of Rs.150/-. The petitioner could not avail

               liberty granted by Trial Court.


               3.    The present application has been filed on 10.12.2025 for

               setting aside ‘no written statement’ order dated 26.06.2013. The
                              (2)                      wp-927-2026.odt



petitioner stated that since he was continuously unwell, could not

deposit cost and file written statement. The Trial Court rejected

application holding that no reasons are given depicting exceptional

circumstances, whereby petitioner was prevented to file written

statement. The present application is moved when suit is at stage

of final argument. Hence, application cannot be entertained.


4.       Perusal of record shows that petitioner was served with suit

summons in year 2013. In light of provisions contained in Order

VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, it was obligatory on part of

petitioner/defendant to file written statement within thirty days

from date of service of summons.        The said period was further

extendable upto ninety days from date of service of summons.

Although powers of Court to accept written statement beyond 90

days are not curtailed, such power is circumvented subject to

extraordinary circumstances being made out by party seeking to

tender written statement beyond prescribed period.          In case of

Parasmal Daulatram Jain Vs. Rameshwar Rathanlal

Karwa1, this Court relying upon law laid down by Supreme Court

in case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others2 observed as under:

      “The Supreme Court has construed the provision as
      directory and not mandatory. However, the Supreme Court
      went on to administer a note of caution that the Court may
      not be misunderstood as nullifying the entire force and
      impact and the entire life and vigour of the said provision.
      Thus, the Supreme Court in terms observed that ordinarily,
      the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 has to be
1    2020 (1) Bom.C.R. 435.
2    (2005) 4 SCC 480.
                               (3)                       wp-927-2026.odt



     honoured. The extension of time shall only be by way of
     exception and for reasons to be recorded in writing. It was
     further ruled in clear and unambiguous terms that in no
     case the defendant 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. Undoubtedly, the
     Supreme Court concluded that no straight-jacket formula
     can be laid down except that the observance of the time
     schedule contemplated by Order VIII Rule 1 shall be the
     rule and departure therefrom an exception, made for
     satisfactory reasons only.”

5.      In light of aforesaid observations, if reasons given in

application filed by petitioner below Exhibit-95 are considered,

except bald statement that petitioner was unwell, no particulars

are tendered towards explanation of delay of nine years in

tendering application. Pertinently, when petitioner had previously

filed application for setting aside ‘no written statement’ order,

which was favourably considered subject to payment of cost.

However, petitioner failed to avail liberty granted by Court and

moved present application, when suit was at stage of final hearing.


6.      In that view of matter, this Court do not find any reason to

cause interference in impugned order in exercise of Writ

jurisdiction. Hence, Writ Petition sans merit.


7.      In result, Writ Petition stands dismissed.



                                        (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                 JUDGE
Devendra/January-2026