Revision on motion sought modification of an order proceeding suit for default of written statement for defendants No.3 to 8 due to abatement of defendant No.2. Court allowed file. with payment of costs. disposition is partly allowed and gifted: costs of ten thousand rupees to plaintiff.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
upa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.798 OF 2006
IN
SUIT NO.283 OF 1981
Life Insurance Corporation of India ).. Plaintiffs
Versus
Bhagwant Singh, Assistant Collector, )
Estate Duty and others ).. Defendants
Ms.Sneha Chodnekar i/b.Little & Co. for the
Plaintiffs.
Mr.Swapnil Bangur i/b.Kalpesh J. Nansi for Defendant
Nos.3 to 8.
CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.
DATED : 24TH MARCH 2006
P.C.:
. By the order dated 20th January 2006, this Court
had directed that the Suit be proceeded against
Defendant Nos.1, 3 to 8 in default of the Written
Statement. The present Motion has been taken out for
setting aside of this order and for a permission to file
the Written Statement on behalf of Defendant Nos.3 to 8.
2. An affidavit has been filed by Defendant No.4 in
support of the Motion where he contends that Defendant
Nos.2 to 8 were living in a joint family in the year
1981 when the Suit was filed and served on them.
Defendant No.2 who has expired and against whom the Suit
2
has abated by the order of 20th January 2006, was
attending the matter and therefore his sibblings,
Defendant Nos.3 to 8 did not bother to attend the
matter. It is, therefore, prayed in these circumstances
that the Written Statement on behalf of Defendant Nos.3
to 8 be accepted and the order dated 20th January 2006
be modified accordingly.
3. This application is opposed vehemently on behalf
of the Plaintiffs. It is contended that the Defendants
ought to have been vigilant in filing the Written
Statement immediately after they were served with the
writ of summons. The learned Counsel appearing for the
Plaintiffs submits that the delay of 25 years should not
be condoned lightly.
4. After having heard the learned Counsel for the
parties, I am of the view that there has been an
inordinate delay in filing the Written Statement by
Defendant Nos.3 to 8. However, with a view that justice
should be done to them, the order dated 20th January
2006 is modified to the extent that the Written
Statement on behalf of Defendant Nos.3 to 8 be taken on
record, subject to them paying costs of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the Plaintiff.
5. Notice of Motion disposed of accordingly.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order proceeding the suit against default of written statement for defendant Nos.3 to 8 can be set aside despite inordinate delay of 25 years.
Nishita Mhatre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court