claimed that on 01.04.2024, he did not have knowledge that the mediation has been terminated. The Mediator would have also explained to the parties that since the period of 90 days had lapsed, the case was being referred back to the referral court. Surprisingly, the petitioner did not appear before the Court on 15.04.2023, even otherwise no reason has been assigned by the petitioner for not filing the written statement since 02.04.2023. The petitioner filed a review petition with respect to the impugned order dated 02.05.2023 on 08.06.2023, however, even then the written statement was not filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the remaining period of 65 days for filing the written statement on showing reasons, expired on 05.06.2023. The petitioner therefore cannot take the benefit of his own negligence and the law only assist those who are vigilant and not who sleep over their rights, the basis of which is expressed in the pristine legal maxim vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt . Thus, in the absence of display of any bona fides, the petitioner cannot seek the benefit beyond the maximum period of 120 days as provided by the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. It is needless to say that 120 days had expired on 05.06.2023. 31. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this court finds no infirmity with the impugned order. The petition, along with pending application, stands dismissed.
