In a writ petition, the High Court set aside the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's application to file a written statement, directing them to file it within a specified timeframe and allowing the trial court to proceed.
Set aside trial court order; directed petitioners to file written statement on or before 30.01.2006.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2836 OF 2005.
Sham Narayan Dube & ors. ..Petitioner
versus
Sukhram R. Yadav & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the Petitioner
None for the Respondent
Coram : S.R.Sathe, J.
Dated : 23rd Jan, 2006
P.C.
1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.
None appears on behalf of the respondent.
2. The petitioners filed application for filing
written statement. The same was rejected by the
trial court on the ground that the copy of the
plaint was served on the petitioners, the original
defendants long back, but they did not file the
written statement for a period of about nine months.
It appears that the contention of the defendants was
that they were not served with the Writ of Summons.
According to the learned Advocate for the
petitioners, the vakalatnama was filed for the
purpose of Chamber Summons and not for the suit and
as the Writ of Summons was not served on the
defendants/petitioners, the written statement was
not filed. From the submissions made before me it
appears that the Writ of Summons was not actually
served leaving aside the question as to whether
under the circumstances of the case it was necessary
to serve the same. It appears that there was no
harm in allowing the defendant to file the written
statement at that time. The learned Advocate for
the petitioners submit that the written statement is
ready and he will file the same within a week. It
must be noted that admittedly on the day when the
application of the present petitioner was rejected
the matter was not ready for hearing and on that day
the same was in fact adjourned for framing of issues
and notice of motion. So, considering all these
facts the petition is allowed. The order passed by
the learned trial judge is set aside and the
petitioners are directed to file their written
statement on or before 30.01.2006. The trial court
to proceed with the suit thereafter.
(S.R.Sathe, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the application to file a written statement should be set aside.
Sham Narayan Dube
Sukhram R. Yadav
S.R.Sathe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court