Dismissed

Sandeep Raghunath Ingale and Another v. Vijaya Bank, a New Bank and Banking Corporation, Jalgaon and Another

Bombay HC29 Oct 2014WP/9286/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition wherein petitioners challenged the rejection of their application for translation of an English plaint into Marathi. The Court held that no prejudice was caused and the impugned order was not perverse.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed holding the impugned order rejecting the translation application was not perverse or erroneous.

Sandeep Raghunath Ingale and Another Vs Vijaya… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

9286. 2014 WP

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9286 OF 2014

¶5

Shri Sandeep Raghunath Ingale & another

¶6

Petitioners

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Vijaya Bank & others ... Respondents

¶9

Mr. M.M. Bhorikar , Advocate for petitioners

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶11

DATED : 29^th OCTOBER , 2014

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard Shri M.M. Bhorikar, learned Advocate for the petitioners at length. A peculiar grievance is raised before this Court.

¶14

In Special Civil Suit No. 310 of 2011 filed by the respondents, the petitioners/ defendants filed its Written Statement. An application below Exhibit 57 was filed on 04-07-2014 seeking Marathi translation of the plaint which in English. The same has been rejected by the impugned order

¶15

¶16

9286. 2014 WP

¶17

dated 14-07-2014 by the 6^th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon.

¶18

Grievance of the petitioners is that there is no harm or loss caused to the plaintiff bank if it is directed to submit a Marathi translation of the plaint. The petitioners are prepared to pay all costs and expenses for such Marathi translation. The petitioners are handicapped from understanding the meaning of the English version of the plaint as well as the exact cause of action put forth by the plaintiff bank.

¶19

Peculiarity of the case is that after receipt of Court notice, the petitioner who is defendant No. 1 has already filed his Written Statement through an Advocate on 13-09-2012 in response to the plaint which was filed on 05-11-2011. Examination in chief, by affidavit, has been filed by the plaintiff witness No. 1, in Marathi. Application for Marathi Translation of the plaint is dated 04-09-2014.

¶20

The learned Trial Court while considering all these facts, in my view, has rightly rejected the application. I do not find that this is a fit case for exercising writ or supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. I do not find that the impugned order could be termed as

¶21

¶22

9286. 2014 WP

¶23

perverse or erroneous. For the said reasons, the petition is

¶24

dismissed.

¶25

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶26

SDM* October--2014

Sandeep Raghunath Ingale and Another v. Vijaya Bank, a New Bank and Banking Corporation, Jalgaon and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Raghunath Ingale and Another v. Vijaya Bank, a New Bank and Banking Corporation, Jalgaon and Another

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

Barku Maharu Patil (Deceased Thr. Lrs.) Devidas Barku Patil and Another Vs Yuvraj Piran Patil and Others

Samina Khan Mujammil Khan Vs Mujammil Khan Chand Khan

Sudarshan Vishnu Phunde Vs Vikas Vasant Mokashe and Another

Sanjay Prabhakar Bhosale Vs the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad and Others

Nandkumar Dattarao Awchar and Another Vs Subhash Parasram Shirpule and Others

Radhakisan Gangadhar Sonawane and Another Vs Damu Laxman Gojare and Others