The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of timely compliance with procedural requirements, the discretionary powers of the court, and the objective of expeditious disposal of disputes.

Heard Mr. Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri. Shrikant Adwant, Adv. for resp. no.1.

2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. By this petition petitioners seek to challenge the legality and propriety of the order dt. 4/1/2007, passed by the learned District Judge – III, Aurangabad, below Exh.33 In Miscellaneous Application Requiring Judicial Enquiry No.303/2002.

4. Facts in brief, giving rise to this petition, are as under ;-

The petitioner no.1 - M/s. Shahaji Alloy Steel Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company registered under the Companies Act. 1956, availed loan of rupees one crore from resp. No.1 SICOM Ltd., which is a deemed Financial Corporation.

As there was default in repayment of the loan, resp.no.1 initiated proceedings under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, for enforcing the liability against the original debtor and guarantors [petitioner nos. I to 3 and resp. nos.2 and 3]. (The name of resp. no.3 is deleted by order dt.23/1/2008.) The proceedings were initiated in the District Court on 4/12/2002.

Admittedly, the petitioner nos.1 to 3 and resp. nos.2 were served and even they appeared before the Court through advocate on 20/2/ 2003. It appears that, since March, 2003, till this date, for more than five years, nothing has happened in the said proceedings and the proceedings, in fact, remained in cold storage, despite the fact that proceedings were initiated as per the provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act and pertains to the public money.

Be that as it may, on 7/8/2004, learned District Judge - III, Aurangahad, pleased to pass order of "No Say". This position is not disputed by the respective counsel and that is to be mentioned here, as record from the coul1 be low is not called for deciding this petition. It is only after period of more than two years i.e. on 18/ 11/2006, an application was filed on behalf of the original resp. nos. 1 to 4 [petitioner nos. 1 to 3 and resp. no.2 herein] at Exh.33, praying for setting aside the "No Say" order dt. 7/8/2004.

It is significant to note the contents or the reasons for not filing the "Say". Para no.3 and 4 of application at Exh.33 are reproduced in verbatim, as under :-

"3. The respondents submit that the respondent No.2 & 4 was continuously out of station due to business assignments and as such, could not contact his Advocate to give necessary instruction for filing say.

4. The respondents further submit that before 2 - 3 days, the respondent No.2 and 4 met with his Advocate and then only came to know about the status of the present petition. After that, the respondent immediately rushed to the Hon'ble Court with this application to file say by setting aside no say order."

Thus, for the reasons stated above, the prayer was made by the petitioners herein for setting aside the order of "No Say" passed two years back. In fact, the reasons given in the application cannot be said to be sufficient.

It appears that, original applicant - resp. no.1 herein - SICOM opposed the said application by filing its say.

After hearing, the learned District Judge - 111, Aurangabad, was pleased to pass the following order :-

The Advocate for resp. Shri. Gangapurwala is absent inspite of calling time to time. The respondents are also absent.

The matter was filed by the petitioner on 4.12.2002. The respondents appeared through Adv. Gangapurwala on 20.2.2003.

No say order against the respondent was passed by the court on 7.8.2004 and finally on 18.11.2006 this application is filed for setting aside no say order.

Para No.3 of this application read that the respondent was continuously out of station for work, therefore, he could not meet the advocate.

In my opinion such reason is not sufficient for setting aside no say order and for accepting the say.

The new amendment to C.P.C. has specially prescribed time of 30 days for filing W.S. from the date of service of summons.

According to me the respondent c