Allowed

Mrs. Nikita Chandrakant Dalvi v. Shri. Chandrakant Sambhaji Dalvi

Bombay HC28 Nov 2018WP/3664/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside the trial Court's order rejecting an application for extension of time to file a written statement. The petitioner was granted four weeks to file it, with direction to be present before the trial Court on a specified date.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application for extension of time was set aside. The petitioner was granted four weeks to file the written statement.

Mrs. Nikita Chandrakant Dalvi Vs Shri. Chandrakant Sambhaji Dalvi — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

47-wp-3664-2016.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3664 OF 2016

¶4

Nikita Chandrakant Dalvi ...Petitioner vs. Chandrakant Sambhaji Dalvi ...Respondent

¶5

None for the Petitioner Ms. Snehal Shirsat, for the Respondent.

¶6

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

¶7

DATE : NOVEMBER 28, 2018

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶9

. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances involved in this matter, even though the Petitioner and her advocate are not present, rule is issued and the same is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶10

The challenge in this Petition is to the order dated 10^th December, 2015 made by the trial Judge which reads as follows :

¶11

“The Respondent is present. WS not filed with this Application. Even today the Respondent is not ready with her

¶12

WS. She again wants date. It is only delaying. Hence, rejected.”

1/3

Vishal Parekar

47-wp-3664-2016.doc

From the perusal of the aforesaid order dated 10^th December, 2015 it is clear that the learned trial Judge has not at all appreciated the reasons set out in the application made by the Petitioner in context of delay in filing the written statement. Instead of passing such order, some costs should have always be imposed upon the Petitioner while allowing her yet another opportunity to file written statement.

¶17

Taking into consideration the causes shown in the application dated 9^th October, 2015 and in the substantive interest, the impugned order dated 10^th December, 2015 is set aside.

¶18

The Petitioner is granted some additional time to file written statement. However, if the Petitioner fails to file written statement in the additional time, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to proceed with the matter without grant of any further opportunity to the Petitioner.

¶19

Since neither the Petitioner nor her advocate are present in the Court, the parties are directed to remain present before the trial Court on 8^th January, 2019.

¶20

The learned trial Judge will grant the Petitioner at least four weeks time to file her written statement and if the written

2/3

Vishal Parekar

47-wp-3664-2016.doc

statement is filed within four weeks, accept the same.

¶25

The Respondent to place the authenticated copy of this order before the learned trial Judge.

¶26

All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy

¶27

of this order.

¶28

The rule is made absolute to the aforesaid terms.

¶29

There shall be no order as to the cost.

¶30

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶31

3/3

¶32

Vishal Parekar

Mrs. Nikita Chandrakant Dalvi v. Shri. Chandrakant Sambhaji Dalvi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Nikita Chandrakant Dalvi v. Shri. Chandrakant Sambhaji Dalvi

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

Rahul Narayan Boricha Vs Suman Rahul Boricha and Ors.

Mr.Swarnendu Ganeshchandra Chosh Vs Mrs. Revati Swarnendu Ghosh

Radheshyam Chunilal Badsiwal Vs Subhash Vrahaspati Dubey

Shri. Vitthal Mhasku Mandhre Vs Mugutrao Vishnu Sanas (Deceased through Lrs.)

Smt. Muktabai Rambhau Mohol Vs Shri Eknath Rambhau Mate

Jairam Shivram Pradhan (Decd.) by Lrs. Vs Padmakar Shankar Durve and Ors.