Allowed

Dnyandev Bala Mahadik v. Narayanrao @ Himatrao Nanasaheb Mane-Deshmukh

Bombay HC5 Mar 2015WP/10608/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition, the High Court quashed an order by the Trial Court that rejected an application to set aside an ex-parte order and accept a written statement already on record, holding the rejection to be hyper-technical under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Trial Court is quashed and set aside; the application Exhibit 24 is allowed; the written statement on record shall be read in the proceedings.

Dnyandev Bala Mahadik Vs Narayanrao @ Himatrao… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2015)

sbw

69.wp10608.13.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10608 OF 2013

¶6

Dnyandev Bala Mahadik

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

Narayanrao @ Himatrao Nanasaheb ManeDeshmukh

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. B. A. Lawate for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.

¶13

DATE : 5^th MARCH, 2015.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated 1^st April, 2013 passed by the learned 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malshiras, by which order the application Exhibit 24 filed by the Petitioner – Original Defendant for setting aside the exparte order passed against him and for acceptance of his written statement came to be rejected. It is required to be noted that the Defendant had earlier filed an application for setting aside the exparte order and for acceptance of his written statement on 30^th January, 2008 which came to be rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 25^th October, 2010. However, it appears that the Defendant had presented his written statement on 1^st February, 2008 which it seems was taken on record by the Trial Court. It appears that during the course of the hearing of the above suit, it transpired that though the written statement is on record, neither the exparte order was set aside nor the order accepting the

¶16

1/2

¶17

sbw 2 69.wp10608.13.doc

¶18

written statement has been passed, hence, the Defendant filed the instant application Exhibit 24 for taking the written statement which is already on record as filed on 1^st February, 2008.

¶19

2] The Trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that since the earlier application for the same relief was rejected vide order dated 25^th October, 2010, the instant application Exhibit 24 could not be entertained.

¶20

3] In my view, in the light of the fact that the written statement has already been filed on 1^st February, 2008 and considering the fact that the said written statement was filed immediately after the period postulated by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was over. The Trial Court has taken a hyper technical view in rejecting the application Exhibit 24.

¶21

4] Having regard to the aforesaid fact, in my view, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the application Exhibit 24 would stand allowed. The written statement which is already filed on 1^st February, 2008 would be read in the proceedings. The Defendant to pay costs of Rs.3000/ to the Plaintiff within four weeks from date. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

(R. M. SAVANT, J.)

¶23

wadhwa

¶24

2/2

Dnyandev Bala Mahadik v. Narayanrao @ Himatrao Nanasaheb Mane-Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyandev Bala Mahadik v. Narayanrao @ Himatrao Nanasaheb Mane-Deshmukh

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

Alex Paulo Cos and Ors. Vs Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Ashok Shivling Bhuinjkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurav Vijayrao Kulkarni Vs the Savitribai Phule Pune University and Ors.

Shri. Shivgonda Ramgonda Patil Vs Mohan Shivram Vaskar (Pap) and Ors.

Samajwadi Party (Solapur Zilla Gramin) through the President Shri Sarjerao R. Jadhav Vs the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad and Ors.

Yogeshvar Laxman Valvi Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Anr.