Allowed

Bapurao Krishnarao Jadhav v. Abaso Krishnarao Jadhav

Bombay HC19 Sept 2019WP/2680/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order rejecting the petitioner's application to set aside an ex-parte proceeding after failing to file a written statement. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order, and permitted the filing of a delayed written statement with suitable costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Application Exhibit 25 allowed; Written statement to be filed within three weeks.

Bapurao Krishnarao Jadhav Vs Abaso Krishnarao… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Pradnya Bhogale 1 513 wp 2680-19.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2680 OF 2019

¶4

Bapurao Krishnarao Jadhav… Petitioner
Vs.
Abaso Krishnarao Jadhav… Respondent

¶5

Mr. Dilip Bodakefor the Petitioner.

¶6

CORAM: M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : 19th SEPTEMBER, 2019.

¶7

P. C.:

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

2.None for the respondent though respondent is duly
served. The petitioner is the original defendant. The plaintiff
filed a suit for possession and removal of encroachment. Though
the summons were duly served on the defendant, the written
statement was not filed. The suit was proceeded ex-parte against
the defendant. Thereafter by filing application Exhibit 25 the
defendant requested that the no written statement order be set
aside. The Trial Court rejected the application Exhibit 25
observing that there has been no due diligence on part of the
defendant. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the

¶10

Pradnya Bhogale 2 513 wp 2680-19.doc

¶11

compromise talks were going on between the parties. He would
moreover submit that no prejudice would be caused to the
plaintiff if the written statement is taken on record.

¶12

3.This Court by the order dated 2.5.2019 directed the
petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- before the Trial
Court by way of security of cost. Learned counsel for the
petitioner says that the said amount has been deposited in the
Trial Court.

¶13

4.In this view of the matter and in the interest of justice
in my opinion the defendant should not be deprived of an
opportunity to defend the suit for want of written statement.
Though there is delay of more than two years in making the
application for taking the written statement on record, the
application Exhibit 25 can be allowed by awarding suitable cost to
the plaintiff to compensate for the delay caused.

¶14

5.The petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside.
Application Exhibit 25 is allowed. The written statement be filed
within a period of three weeks from today. The suit is of the year

¶15

2 of 3

¶16

Pradnya Bhogale 3 513 wp 2680-19.doc

¶17

2012. It is made clear and even the petitioner undertakes that he
would co-operate with the Trial Court in the expeditious disposal
of the suit and will not seek unnecessary adjournments.
The plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the cost of Rs.25,000/-
which is deposited in the Trial Court.

¶18

 ( M. S. KARNIK, J. )

¶19

3 of 3

Bapurao Krishnarao Jadhav v. Abaso Krishnarao Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapurao Krishnarao Jadhav v. Abaso Krishnarao Jadhav

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

Sonal Shailendra Gujar Vs Shailendra Dattatray Gujjar

Shri Dilip Yashwant Bhosale and Anr. Vs Shri Sidhishaha Mahamud Khan and Ors.

Priti Tushar Deshpande Vs Tushar Kishor Deshpande

Tulshiram Sitaram Mahajan and Ors. Vs Sharad Shankar Mangde and Ors.

D. Prabhu @ Desmond D'Costa Prabhu Vs Gateway Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Avinash Gothi Vs Niyazzoddin Paroddin Pathan and Anr.