Dismissed

Shri. Vilas Ganpat Bhoir (Since Decd through Lrs.) and Ors. v. Shri. Anant Shripat Ambre and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Jul 2017WP/3786/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the trial court order rejecting a prayer to set aside a No W.S. order passed due to the legislature absenteeship of defendants. The High Court upheld the trial courts order finding no sufficient excuse for the lapse. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22/06/2016 was not disturbed and the writ petition was dismissed.

Shri. Vilas Ganpat Bhoir (Since Decd through… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

511.3786.17 wp

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3786 OF 2017

¶4

Shri. Vilas Ganpat Bhoir .....Petitioner (Since decd). Through LRS.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Shri. Anant Shripat Ambre and Ors. ....Respondents

¶7

Ms. Anusha P. Amin Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Neeta Karnik Advocate for respondent nos. 2, 4 & 5.

¶8

CORAM : Mrs. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶9

DATED : JULY 26, 2017.

¶10

PC :

¶11

Not on board. Upon urgent mentioning, taken on board.

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, petition is heard

¶13

finally and decided at the stage of admission.

¶14

This petition is directed against the order dated 22/06/2016 passed by 13^th Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane rejecting the prayer of setting aside

¶15

ism

¶16

2 511.3786.17 wp

¶17

'No W.S.' passed below Exhibit 61 in Regular Civil Suit No. 482 of 2005. The suit is filed in the year 2005 against three defendants. Thereafter, summons were served on defendants on 03/09/2005. Thereafter, defendants remained absent throughout, so first 'No W.S.' order was passed on 06/01/2011 against defendant no. 1/3. Thereafter, 'No W.S.' order was passed against defendant nos. 1/1 and 1/2 on 03/09/2012 and then 'No W.S.' order passed against defendant nos. 2 & 3 on 06/02/2013. Petitioners/original defendants thereafter filed application on 08/11/2014 for setting aside 'No W.S.' order which was rejected. Hence, this petition.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not attend the court and there was no communication between the petitioner and the advocate and therefore, 'No W.S.' order was passed. She has further submitted that application under section 9 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the jurisdiction was filed by the defendants and as that application was filed, no written statement was filed.

¶19

1. The learned counsel for the respondent/original plaintiffs nos. 2, 4 & 5

¶20

ism

¶21

3 511.3786.17 wp

¶22

submitted that application under section 9 (A) of the CPC was filed on 30/11/2013 i.e. after 'No W.S.' orders were passed by the trial court. It is further submitted that the reason given by the defendant in the application is false. The learned counsel supported the order passed by the trial court, rejecting the application for setting aside 'No W.S.' order.

¶23

Perused order passed below Exhibit 71 by the learned trial Judge. Perused record, so also application dated 08/11/2014 for setting aside 'No W.S.' order. No sufficient reasons is given by the defendants in the application as to why written statement was not filed nearly for a period of 9 years. The ground for not filing of the written statement due to pendency of 9 (A) application is also incorrect as the said application was admittedly filed after 'No W.S.' orders were passed. The order passed by the learned trial court is well reasoned, no illegality is found. Hence, not disturbed.

¶24

1. Rule is discharged.

¶25

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶26

ism

Shri. Vilas Ganpat Bhoir (Since Decd through Lrs.) and Ors. v. Shri. Anant Shripat Ambre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Vilas Ganpat Bhoir (Since Decd through Lrs.) and Ors. v. Shri. Anant Shripat Ambre 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

School View Lakshmi Vani Chs Ltd. Vs Mr. Siddappa Y Kusugal and Ors.

School View Lakshmi Vani Chs Ltd. Vs Mr. Siddappa Y Kusugal and Ors.

Shri. Mahesh Kumar Nandrajog Lrs. of Late Shri. Radhakrishan R. Nandrajog Vs P.S. Smabamoorthy and Ors.

Shri Popat @ Haribhau Maruti Pawar Since Decd Lrs. Vs Padu Sadu Pawar (Since Decd) Lrs. and Ors.

Popat @ Haribhau Maruti Pawar Vs Padu Sadu Pawar (Since Deceased through Her Lrs) Smt Janakabai Padu Pawar

Shri. Raichand Brijlal Kunkulol Vs Ms. Mangala Krishnaji Deshmukh and Anr.