Allowed

Subhash Punamchand Sharma and Others v. Bharati Ashok Bhavsar and Another

Bombay HC10 Jan 2018WP/9435/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the petition filed by petitioners against a Special Civil Court order refusing to set aside a 'No Written Statement' order. The Court quashed the impugned order, allowed the application to set aside the 'No W.S.' status, and imposed costs of Rs.10,000 on the petitioners due to their delay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the impugned order is quashed and set aside; the application to set aside the 'No W.S.' order is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000 imposed on the petitioners.

Subhash Punamchand Sharma and Others Vs Bharati Ashok… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

17 WP.9435.17.odt

¶3

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

¶4

17 WRIT PETITION NO. 9435 OF 2017

¶5

SUBHASH PUNAMCHAND SHARMA AND OTHERS VERSUS BHARATI ASHOK BHAVSAR [SHAVAGE] AND ANOTHER

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni. Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. A. Ambilwade, h/f Mr. A. S. Sawant.

¶7

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. DATE : 10^th January, 2018.

¶8

ORDER :

¶9

. By this writ petition, the Petitioners / original Defendants

¶10

have challenged the order passed by the Trial Court dated 18^th April, 2017 below Exhibit 28 in Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2014. The Trial Court has passed “No W.S.” order as against the present Petitioners and as such, the Petitioners have filed the application Exhibit 28 for setting aside the “No W.S.” order. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 18^th April, 2017, rejected the said application. Hence, this writ petition.

¶11

2 The learned counsel for Petitioners submits that during the pendency of the suit, the Petitioners / Defendants have filed an application Exhibit 17 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the original agreement for which the specific performance is sought, is not

¶12

¶13

17 WP.9435.17.odt

¶14

produced before the Court. The said application came to be decided on 3^rd July, 2015. Thereafter, the Respondents / original Plaintiffs have produced the original agreement on 19^th November, 2015 and it was forwarded to the Collector for impounding. On 18^th October, 2016, the Collector has impounded the said document and on 19^th November, 2016, the Trial Court has passed “No W.S.” order. On 23^rd January, 2017, the Petitioners have filed the application Exhibit 28 for setting aside the order of “No W.S.”.

¶15

3 I have also heard the learned counsel for Respondents. The learned counsel for Respondents submits that for near about two years, the Petitioners / Defendants have not filed the written statement and they were not prevented from filing the written statement for any other cause. The Petitioners / Defendants have nothing to do with the impounding of the document and they ought to have filed the written statement within time to oppose the pleadings of the Respondents / Plaintiffs.

¶16

4 On perusal of the documents submitted alongwith the writ petition, it appears that the special civil suit is pending since 2014 for a relief of specific performance of contract. It further appears that till the year 2016, the Trial Court has not passed the “No W.S.” order as

¶17

¶18

17 WP.9435.17.odt

¶19

against the Petitioners and after passing of “No W.S.” order, the

¶20

Petitioners have filed the application Exhibit 28 for setting aside the said order.

¶21

5 In view of the above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. However, the Petitioners are responsible for causing delay in filing the written statement and thus, they must be saddled with costs

¶22

for the inaction on their part. Hence, the following order:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

I. The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶25

II. The impugned order dated 18^th April, 2017 below Exhibit 28 in Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2014, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶26

III. The application Exhibit 28 is hereby allowed in terms of its prayer clause subject to the costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), which is already deposited before this Court. The same shall be paid to the Respondents / original Plaintiffs forthwith.

¶27

IV. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]

¶29

ndm

Subhash Punamchand Sharma and Others v. Bharati Ashok Bhavsar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Punamchand Sharma and Others v. Bharati Ashok Bhavsar 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

Mayura Rakesh Desai Vs Rakesh Ashokrao Desai

Avinash Shashikant Shah Vs the Administrator New Cidco Waluj Aurangabad and Another

Dilip Krishna Patil and Others Vs Sub Divisional Officer Jalgaon and Others

Surekha Vitthalrao Meghare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Sant Narayan Baba Devasthan through President Eknath Gyanoba Mane Vs Joint Charity Commissioner Latur

Shaikh Rizwan Shaikh Haroon Vs Machindra Jaywantrao Hade