Dismissed

Hiraman L Saraf Dead Th Lrs Bhagwat H Saraf Dead Th Lrs Ujwala Rajendra Patil and Ors. v. Madansingh Babusinh Rajput Deceased Th Lrs Chandrashekher Madansinh Rajput and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Nov 2011WP/5520/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench disposed of a writ petition challenging an order accepting a defendant's written statement. Court rejected arguments regarding procedural impropriety, upheld the exercising of judicial discretion, and granted the plaintiff liberty to lead additional evidence. No order as to costs was passed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; plaintiff given liberty to lead additional evidence; no order as to costs.

Hiraman L Saraf Dead Th Lrs Bhagwat H Saraf Dead Th Lrs Ujwala… — Partition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.5520/11

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5520 OF 2011

¶7

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

Mr.M.L.Sangeet, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Milind Patil, advocate for Respondent No.1(iii).

¶10

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶11

 Date : 16.11.2011.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

Mr.Sangeet, learned counsel seeks leave to delete all Respondents except Respondent No.1(iii). Leave granted.

¶15

The petitioners have filed the present petition against the order accepting the written statement of Respondent No.1(iii).

¶16

Mr.Sangeet, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶17

no reasons are given by the trial Judge while allowing the application. The Written Statement was also not filed along with the application. In absence of the Written Statement, the said application could not have been considered. The learned counsel further states that even the evidence of present petitioner/plaintiff is

¶18

¶19

W.P.No.5520/11

¶20

concluded and one of the defendant has also filed his evidence. The learned counsel contends that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 have to be followed in letters and spirit. The same having not been followed, the order impugned can not be sustained. The defendants are only protracting the matter.

¶21

Mr.Patil, learned counsel for Respondent No.1(iii) submits that the Written Statement is on record. The same has been filed along with the application. The matter involves the right of the parties in an immovable property. The plaintiff is seeking declaration that he is tenant over the suit property. The plaintiff contends to be in possession of the property, as such the delay would not prejudice the plaintiff. The Respondent No.1(iii) has given reasons in the application. The Respondent No.1(iii) has stated that he was not aware of the proceedings and the brother of Respondent No.1(iii) was looking after the proceedings and she was not intimated about the progress.

¶22

The discretion has been exercised by the trial court. Considering the reasons stated, the same need not be interfered.

¶23

As the Written Statement has been accepted after the evidence is concluded, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to lead additional evidence in that regard.

¶24

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. However,

¶25

¶26

W.P.No.5520/11

¶27

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶29

Dt.16.11.2011. asp/office/wp5520.11

¶30

¶31

W.P.No.5520/11

Hiraman L Saraf Dead Th Lrs Bhagwat H Saraf Dead Th Lrs Ujwala Rajendra Patil and Ors. v. Madansingh Babusinh Rajput Deceased Th Lrs Chandrashekher Madansinh Rajput and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiraman L Saraf Dead Th Lrs Bhagwat H Saraf Dead Th Lrs Ujwala Rajendra Patil and Ors. v. Madansingh Babusinh Rajput Deceased Th Lrs Chandrashekher Madansinh Rajput and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dadu Sahadu Gorakhe Vs Namdeo Mahadu Gorakhe and Ors.

Bhatabai Damu Koli and Anr. Vs Kamalbai Kadu Koli and Anr.

Ram Madhav Sathe Vs Janardhan Limbaji Sathe and Ors.

Sunil Bhavarlal Sharma Vs the Partner, Videocon India and Ors.

Sudam Baburao Bagul and Anr. Vs Mushir Ahmed Ayyub Shah and Rs

Sarojini Sarjerao Kapse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.