Allowed

Education Solution, Pune and Another v. Sudhakar Bhagwan Chaudhari

Bombay HC22 Jul 2015WP/3124/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court allowed a writ petition to condone delay in seeking leave to defend and file a written statement in a summary suit—containing material fraud—on condition that the petitioner deposits a specified sum in the trial court within four weeks as agreed by the parties.

What did the court decide?

Condoned delay in seeking leave to defend in summary suit; plaintiff's order upholding summary suit (Exhibit 48) set aside; petitioner declared conditionally bound to deposit Rs. 18.50 lakh in trial c

Education Solution, Pune and Another Vs Sudhakar… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP-3124.15

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3124 OF 2015

¶5

Education Solution, prorietory ship firm and anr. ….. Petitioners vs Shri Sudhakar Bhagwan Chaudhari …. Respondent

¶6

Mr. Girish V. Wani, Advocate for petitioners Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent

¶7

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. 22ND JULY, 2015

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

Petition has been moved against order dated 04-03-2015 on Exhibit-50 in summary suit no. 3 of 2014, passed by 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon.

¶10

Exhibit–50 had been moved by defendants for setting aside order dated 04-12-2014 passed on Exhibits-1 and 48. Order on Exhibit-1 had been passed, declining leave to defend the suit, for, defendants had not applied for such leave within a period of ten days from the date of service of summons of judgment on them.

¶11

It appears that defendants purported to rely on Exhibit-7 for the purpose of seeking leave to defend the suit pursuant to the relevant rules under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the request appears not to have been considered by the court and the application was simply filed since the same was made even before the summons for judgment and it was for seeking time to file written statement.

¶12

¶13

WP-3124.15

¶14

Exhibit-48 had been moved by plaintiff to keep the matter for judgment pursuant to relevant rules under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, in effect, orders on Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-48 are the subject-matter of challenge in writ petition

¶15

After hearing learned counsel for some time, parties resile to a situation whereunder the petitioner proposes to deposit a sum of ` 18,50,000/- in the trial court as a condition precedent for consideration of his request for condonation of delay for leave to defend as well as to file written statement.

¶16

Having regard to the reasonable approach shown by the parties, I think writ petition deserves positive consideration. Delay in seeking leave to defend as such shall stand condoned and order on Exhibit-48 stands set aside.

¶17

Writ petition, as such, is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B) subject, of course, to the aforesaid condition that the defendants shall deposit a sum of ` 18,50,000/- in the trial court within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of writ of this order.

¶18

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

¶19

pnd

Education Solution, Pune and Another v. Sudhakar Bhagwan Chaudhari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Education Solution, Pune and Another v. Sudhakar Bhagwan Chaudhari

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

Rajan Madhukar Shelke and Another Vs Ravindra Keshav Shelke and Others

Santosh Dagdu Mhase Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Gorakh Govind Megh Vs Vimal Gorakh Megh and Anr.

Ganesh Saminder Gavate Vs Honble Minister, Food, Mumbai and Others

Dinanath Bhaurao Tavale Vs State Election Commission Maharashtra State through Its Returning Officer and Others

Ayub Ismail Machkuri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others