Allowed

Dattatraya Kondiba Chakankar and Anr. v. Malan Baban Yadav and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2009WP/878/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227 permitting petitioners to adopt the timely written statement of other defendants. The court conditioned this indulgence on the petitioners compensating the plaintiffs for avoidable litigation delays.

What did the court decide?

Permitted petitioners to adopt the written statement of Defendants 3 to 5 within time; ordered payment of Rs.7,500/- as cost to plaintiffs.

Dattatraya Kondiba Chakankar and Anr. Vs Malan Baban… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.878 OF 2008

¶4

 Shri Dattatraya Kondiba Chakankar
 & Anr. ...Petitioners

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Ms.Malan Baban Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

 Ms.Gunjan Shah for Petitioners.

¶8

 Ms.Anjali S.Uthale for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 MARCH 24, 2009.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

 1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶13

 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by

¶14

 consent. Ms.Uthale waives notice for Respondents.

¶15

 3. As short question is involved, Petition is

¶16

 taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

¶17

 4. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of

¶18

 : 2 :

¶19

 the Constitution of India takes exception to the
 Judgment and Order dated 8th October 2007 passed by
 the IInd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune

¶20

 below Exhibit 58 in Regular Civil Suit
 No.1249/2005. By this order, the Trial Court
 rejected the Application preferred by Defendants 1
 and 2 praying for taking their written statement on
 record and to recall the order dated 18th March
 2006 of no written statement. The Court below has
 rightly taken the view that no sufficient cause,
 much less, exceptional circumstance has been
 established by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to show
 indulgence to allow them to file written statement
 belatedly. However, before this Court, the

¶21

 argument of the Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 is
 that the Petitioners would be more than content, if
 they are allowed to adopt the written statement of
 Defendants 3 to 5 which is already filed on record
 in time. According to the Petitioners, this
 request was made before the Trial Court but has not
 been adverted to at all though specifically stated
 in the formal application filed (Exhibit 58).

¶22

 5. Be that as it may, the question is: if

¶23

 : 3 :

¶24

 this course suggested by the Petitioners is to be
 accepted, would it cause any prejudice to the
 Plaintiffs? In my opinion, no prejudice will be
 caused to the Plaintiffs as no further pleadings
 will come on record, but the pleading which is
 already on record, will be merely adopted by the
 Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2. Ofcourse this
 indulgence can be shown to the

¶25

 Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 on condition that
 they should compensate the Plaintiff as he was
 forced to pursue proceedings which were on account
 of lapse and inaction of the Petitioners/Defendants
 1 and 2 and completely avoidable.

¶26

 6. In the circumstances, this Petition partly
 succeeds by allowing the application preferred by
 the Petitioners (Exhibit 58) in part so as to
 permit them to adopt the written statement of
 Defendants 3 to 5 already filed on record within
 time. That indulgence is shown on condition that
 the Petitioners shall pay cost quantified at
 Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred) to
 the Plaintiffs within two weeks from today and the
 proposed purshis as per the assurance given before

¶27

 : 4 :

¶28

 this Court shall be filed within the same time

¶29

 before the Trial Court.

¶30

 7. Failure to comply with any of the above
 condition, the Trial Court will proceed on the
 assumption that the present Petition has been
 dismissed for non-prosecution and the order dated
 18th October 2007 passed by the Trial Court shall
 stand revived.

¶31

 8. Petition disposed of on the above terms.

¶32

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Dattatraya Kondiba Chakankar and Anr. v. Malan Baban Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Kondiba Chakankar and Anr. v. Malan Baban Yadav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri J.B.Chavan Vs Shri v.R.Ladkat and Others.

Vishwas Panditrao Jape Vs Shrikant Bhagwan Phadnis

Krishnanath Gendalal Chawan and Ors. Vs Shri Vasant Rambhau Ladkat and Ors.

Meshog Sohram Irani Vs Dr.Aspi Framroze Golwalla and Ors,.

Kumari Indira Udhav Sanyasi Shimpi Vs Sanjay Bhagwatrao Naik and Ors.

M/S. D. K. Enterprises and Anr. Vs Radhadevi Motumal Chugh and Ors.