Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.

2. The Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.177/2007/A and shall, hereinafter, be referred to as such.

3. In this Writ Petition, they have challenged the Order dated 20-8-2009 of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa by which they have been disallowed to file written statement to the counter-claim.

4. Heard Shri. S. R. Rivonkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs and Ms. F. Mesquita, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 i.e. the Defendants in the said Civil Suit.

5. There is no dispute that the Defendants filed written statement with counterclaim on 8-2-2008.

6. On 14-3-2008, the case was simply adjourned and was fixed for arguments on application for temporary injunction on 17-4-2008. On this day, an application was filed by the plaintiffs seeking time to file written statement to the counter-claim and the same was granted by the Court as it was not objected to on behalf of the Defendants. The case was again taken up on 30-4-2008 and as the plaintiffs were absent it was fixed for arguments on application for temporary injunction on 2-7-2008.

7. There were no sittings of the Court on 2-7-2008, 7-8-2008, 3-10-2008, 4-11-2008 and 6-12-2008. On 30-1-2009, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking time to file written statement in answer to the counterclaim. In this application, it was, inter alia, stated that on going through the file it was found that no reply i.e. W.S. was filed by the plaintiffs to the counter-claim. The same came to be rejected on the ground that there was no explanation for filing the W.S. beyond 90 days. On the same day, the plaintiffs filed a comprehensive application, styling the same as an application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement to the counter-claim. In the said application, it was set out by the plaintiffs in detail, that some of the documents relied upon by the defendants in the counter-claim were not furnished to the Plaintiffs, and, therefore they had filed an application directing the Defendants to furnish the said documents; thereafter there was no Presiding Officer and the dates were being given by the Bench Clerk; that subsequently, the documents were submitted by the Defendants to the plaintiffs on 16-4-2008, and accordingly the written statement was prepared and handed over to the plaintiffs for verification; in the meantime, there were talks for settlement between the plaintiffs and the Defendants, as the plaintiffs and Defendants were the co-owners of the suit property; that there was another suit bearing R.C.S. No.520 of 2000 which was pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Mapusa wherein it was recorded that the parties were negotiating settlement and talks for settlement were going on; that the written statement to the counter-claim although was prepared and was ready to be filed remained without being verified and remained with the plaintiffs; that in the meantime, the plaintiffs' grand-daughter expired in an accident, and, therefore the plaintiffs were in grief and were depressed; that the plaintiffs were in bona fide impression that since the Presiding Judge was not sitting and the dates were being given by the Bench Clerk, the plaintiffs would have filed the written statement when the Presiding Judge presided and sat in the Court; that an application for adjournment was filed and the same was rejected.

8. The plaintiffs, therefore, got verified the written statement and presented it to the Court and since the written statement was filed after the expiry of 90 days, the Court refused to take the same on record.

9. Therefore, the said application was filed to seek condonation of delay in filing the written statement to the counter-claim. The learned trial Court by the impugned Order came to the conclusion that since the statute prescribed certain period, the said period could not be enlarged further by the Court. Although, some decisions