Quashed

M/S. Gold Resorts Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director/Secretary/Principal Officer v. Mrs. Indumati R. Devasthali and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2013WP/53/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Goa, relied on Article 227 to quash orders rejecting an application for extension of time to file a written statement, holding that the CPC provision on timelines is directory.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 12/02/2008 and 10/05/2010 were quashed and set aside; the defendant was directed to file the written statement and pay Rs. 15,000 costs.

M/S. Gold Resorts Pvt. Ltd. through Its… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.53 OF 2013

¶4

M/s. Gold Resorts Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, Through its Director/Secretary/Principal Officer, Having registered office at Jain Bhawan, 12 Bhagat Singh Marga, New Delhi – 110001 and Corporate office at Augusta Point, 5^th Floor, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon-122 022.

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

V/s

¶7

Mrs. Indumati Ramakrishan Devasthali, Alias Indumati Venkatesh Tengse Alias Indumati Vencotexa Boto, Daughter of late Ramkrishna Narayan Devasthali alias Boto, Wife of Mr. Venkatesh Durgaram Tengse, Aged 62 years, housewife, and her husband

¶8

Mr. Venkatesh Durgaram Tengse alias Boto, son of late Durgaram Tengse alias Boto, Aged 73 years, landlord, Both residents of H.No.861/A, Bhatwadem-Poinguinim, Canacona – Goa. (deceased, through Legal Representatives)

¶9

2(a) Mr. Shripad Venkatesh Tengse, Son of late Venkatesh Durgaram Tengse,

¶10

2(b) Mrs. Anagha Shripad Tengse, Wife of Shripad Venkatesh Tengse, Both residents of H.No.55,

¶11

¶12

Near Govind Madhav Temple, Dhavali, Ponda-Goa.

¶13

2(c) Mr. Abhay Venkatesh Tengse,

¶14

Son of late Venkatesh Durgaram Tengse,

¶15

2(d) Mrs. Manasi Abhay Tengse, Wife of Abhay Venkatesh Tengse,

¶16

Both residents of Welwada, Poinguinim, Canacona-Goa.

¶17

2(e) Mr. Pramod Venkatesh Tengse, Son of late Venkatesh Durgaram Tengse,

¶18

2(f) Mrs. Archana Pramod Tengse,

¶19

Wife of Pramod Venkatesh Tengse,

¶20

2(g) Mr. Manohar Venkatesh Tengse,

¶21

Son of late Venkatesh Durgaram Tengse,

¶22

2(h) Mrs. Rukmini Manohar Tengse, Wife of Manohar Venkatesh Tengse, All residents of H.No.861/A, Bhatwadem-Poinguinim, Canacona-Goa.

¶23

2(i) Mr. Snatosh Venkatesh Tengse,

¶24

Son of late Venkatesh Durgaram Tengse,

¶25

2(j) Mrs. Sandhya Santosh Tengse,

¶26

wife of Santosh Venkatesh Tengse,

¶27

Both residents of H.No.55,

¶28

Near Govind Madhav Temple,

¶29

Dhavali, Ponda-Goa.

¶30

Mr. Girish Quessova Savaikar,

¶31

Son of Mr. Quessova Narayan Savaikar, Aged 36 years, agriculturist and his wife,

¶32

Mrs. Anuradha Girish Savaikar, Wife of Mr. Girish Quessova Savaikar, Aged 28 years, housewife,

¶33

¶34

and both residents of H.No.350, Post Gulei, Ambeli, Sattari-Goa.

¶35

Mr. Shrikant Madusudan Devasthali, Son of late Madusudan Naraina Devasthali, Aged 50 years, agriculturist, And his children's,

¶36

Master Aakash Shrikant Devasthali, Son of Shrikant Madusudan Devasthali, Aged 17 years, student, and his brother (represented through the respondent no.5, Guardian Appointed by the Court)

¶37

Master Akhil Shrikant Devasthali, Son of Shikant Madusudan Devasthali, Aged 12 years, student, (represented through the Respondent No.5, Guardian Appointed by the Court), All are resident of Xelim-Loliem, Canacona-Goa. …. Respondents

¶38

Shri Shivan Desai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A.D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶39

CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J.

¶40

DATE : 23^rd SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶42

Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made

¶43

returnable forthwith and heard.

¶44

The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the petitioner i.e. the original

¶45

¶46

defendant no.4 against the order dated 12/02/2008 and the order dated 10/05/2010 passed by the learned IInd Additional Civil Senior Division, Margao in Special Civil Suit No.118/2007/II(O) now renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No.31/2010(N).

¶47

In so far as the first order dated 12/02/2008 is concerned, by the said order the application filed by the defendant no.4 for extension of time to file the written statement came to be rejected and by the second order dated 10/05/2010, the application filed by the defendant no.4 for placing the written statement on record and the same to be accepted by the Trial Court came to be rejected. It is not necessary to go into unnecessary details, suffice it to say that there is a delay of about 40 days on the part of the defendant no.4 in filing its written statement. It appears that in so far as first application dated 12/02/2008 was concerned the plaintiffs had in fact endorsed on the said application that they have no objection to the extension of time being granted. Having regard to the fact that it is trite that provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 are directory and not mandatory and since the delay in filing the written statement is only 40 days, both the applications i.e. the application dated 12/02/2008 and the application dated 14/03/2008 are required to be allowed and accordingly allowed and resultantly the impugned orders dated 12/02/2008 and

¶48

¶49

10/05/2010 would stand quashed and set aside. The defendant no.4 would be entitled to file its written statement which was sought to be presented with the application dated 14/03/2008. The Trial Court to take on file the said written statement.

¶50

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper that the defendant no.4 is directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the plaintiffs on or before the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. The payment of Costs is a condition precedent and the benefit of this order would enure to the petitioner if the said costs are paid to the plaintiffs. If the costs are not paid as mandated by the instant order the benefit of this order will not enure to the petitioner and consequently the petition would be deemed to be dismissed.

¶51

The parties to act on a authenticated copy of this order.

¶52

R.M. SAVANT, J.

¶53

NH/-

M/S. Gold Resorts Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director/Secretary/Principal Officer v. Mrs. Indumati R. Devasthali and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Gold Resorts Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director/Secretary/Principal Officer v. Mrs. Indumati R. Devasthali and 6 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

Paramount Earth Movers through Prop. Mr. Natubhai Kotecha and Anr. Vs Mr. Eknath Tari

Shri. Antonio Santana Fernandes and Anr. Vs Shri. Agostinho Da Costa and 3 Ors.

Mr. Shekhar Vassudev Verlekar (Since Dec.) Rep. by Lr'S. Vs Jairam Krishnanath Kamat and 2 Ors.

Shri Nagesh Anant Naik (Since Deceased) through Lr'S and Anr., Vs Tari Society, Valpoi Rep. by Its President Vinayak J. Tari and 3 Ors.

Mr. Peter Fernandes @ Mr. Pedro Fernandes and Anr., Vs Mrs. Marianinha Fernandes Vaz and Anr.

Shri. Deepak L. Bhandare Vs Smt. Durga Deepak Bhandare and Anr.