Allowed

Mandakini Laxman Nikam and Anr. v. Shaktikumar Anandrao Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2010WP/9550/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the trial court order to proceed without filing a written statement. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order refusing to accept a reply filed within 30 days as the written statement, and ordered the petitioner to adopt such reply.

What did the court decide?

The order to proceed without written statement was set aside; petitioners permitted to adopt Exhibit 18 as Writtten Statement; costs of Rs. 5,000 allowed to be withdrawn.

Mandakini Laxman Nikam and Anr. Vs Shaktikumar… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2010)

wp-9550-09.sxw

SRJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.9550 OF 2009

¶7

Mandakini L. Nikam
& Others.. Petitioners.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Shaktikumar A. Patil
& Others.. Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Ranaware D.D., for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.H.Yadav, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM :A.S.OKA,J.

¶12

DATE :12th APRIL,2010

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

1]Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶15

Petitioners and the Learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the suit filed by the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, an order was passed against the
Petitioners / Defendants that the suit will proceed
without their Written Statement. An application at Exhibit
65 was made by the Petitioner on 22nd June, 2007, seeking
extension of time to file Written Statement. By a detailed
order dated 19th March, 2008 the said application was
rejected by observing that order to proceed without
Written Statement was passed on 24th August, 2006. It
appears that instead of challenging the said order passed

¶16

SRJ 2 wp-9550-09.sxw

¶17

below Exhibit 65, the present Petitioner applied for
review of the said order. The application for review was
rejected by the Trial Court. By this Writ Petition, the
Petitioners have challenged both the aforesaid orders.

¶18

2]The Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶19

Petitioners on instructions of the Petitioners states that
the Petitioners be permitted to adopt the reply filed by
them at Exhibit 18 to the application at Exhibit 5 as
their Written Statement.

¶20

3]It must be noted here that, the said reply

¶21

appears to have been filed within 30 days of the date of
the institution of the suit. This is a case where

¶22

Petitioners contested the application for temporary
injunction by filing the said reply. The Petitioners can
be permitted to adopt the said reply as their Written
Statement. In view of adoption of the said reply, the
Written Statement of the Petitioner shall be deemed to

¶23

have been filed on 25th October, 2005 when the said reply
was filed.

¶24

4]Hence, the Petition is disposed of by passing
following order:-

¶25

(i)The order passed by the Trial
Court to proceed without Written Statement
of the Petitioners is quashed and set aside
and the Petitioners are permitted to adopt
the reply at Exhibit 18 as their Written
Statement.

wp-9550-09.sxw

SRJ

(ii)Trial Court shall proceed to
frame issue on the basis of the Written
Statement.
(iii)The 1st and 2nd Respondents are
permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,000/-
deposited in this Court by way of costs.
(iv)The Petition is allowed in above
terms.

¶30

(A.S.OKA,J.)

Mandakini Laxman Nikam and Anr. v. Shaktikumar Anandrao Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandakini Laxman Nikam and Anr. v. Shaktikumar Anandrao Patil 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

Arjuna Mahadu Chougle and Anr. Vs Maruti Bhagoji Dige and Ors.

Narayan Baba Khatate Vs Sitaram Tukaram Mirgal and Ors.

Cyrus Pestonji Dubash Vs Muncherji Dinshah Batliwala (Desd) Lrs.

B. Y. Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashok Ramchandra Pawar and Ors.

Baburao Bayaji Jagadale Vs Shankar Malhari Kholase ( Deceased )

Housa Vitthal Budhawale Vs Sunil Banshiram Bhosale and Ors.