Dismissed

Kisan Atamaram Salgare v. Nanubai Uttam Salgare and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Apr 2010WP/1169/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by a petitioner who had failed to file a written statement in a suit, claiming extraordinary circumstances. The High Court rejected the petition, holding that the petitioner concealed the sale of the suit property and lacked bona fides, thus no extraordinary circumstances existed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was rejected. The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- to the first respondent.

1Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent. An order was passed on 29th August 2008 to proceed with the suit without written statement of the petitioner. By the impugned order, an application praying for setting aside the said order has been rejected.

2It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent that by registered sale deed dated 28th August 2008, the petitioner has sold the suit property to a third party. A true copy of the sale deed is annexed to the affidavit. It is not in dispute that the said sale deed has been executed by the petitioner.

3The suit is governed by rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 as amended on 1st July 2002. As stated earlier, order to proceed without written statement was passed on 29th August 2008 and the present application was filed by the petitioner on 14th September

2009. In the said application, the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that on 28th August 2008, the sale deed in respect of the suit property was executed by him. On expiry of time provided under Rule 1 of Order VIII, the Court can permit the filing of written statement only if a case of extraordinary circumstances is made out. It is contended in the application that the petitioner was not aware that it was necessary to file written statement. It is contended that the petitioner was not well and due to financial difficulty, he could not file written statement. A copy of the sale deed is placed on record which shows that the petitioner had received substantial amount of Rs.1,33,000/- by way of consideration. It is obvious that what is stated in the application is not bonafide. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. Material facts were suppressed by the petitioner while making the said application at Exhibit-26.

4No case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. The petitioner has already deposited costs of Rs.5000/- payable to the first respondent. The first respondent is entitled to the said amount as the petitioner suppressed the fact of execution of sale deed. The first respondent is entitled to withdraw the same.

Kisan Atamaram Salgare v. Nanubai Uttam Salgare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kisan Atamaram Salgare v. Nanubai Uttam Salgare 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

Om Sai Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Liberty Welfare Society and Anr.

Delux Agencies Vs Dwarka Enterprises

Manoj Kantilal Bhartiya Vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Balasaheb Marutirao Gaikwad Vs Sou.Vijayamala N.Upadhye and Ors.

Laxmichand Liladhar Dedhia and Ors. Vs Sarojini Arjun Kumbhar and Ors.

Indira Mohanlal Jain and Anr. Vs M/S. Kuber Builders and Ors.