The Single Judge, High Court at Goa, granted leave to file a belated written statement after condoning a 260-day delay, subject to the petitioner depositing substantial costs.
Delay of 260 days condoned; written statement taken on record; Rs. 50,000 costs payable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Andreza -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 118 OF 2020
Mr. Shivam Kamat,
s/o Manoj Kamat, 25 years of age, r/o
'Ashiana', D3/S4, Behand Galaxy
Hospital, Duler, Mapusa, Bardez,
Goa. …...Petitioner
V e r s u s
Kodewprk United LLP,
A Limited Liability Company,
Incorporated under the LLP Act,
2008 Having its registered address at
Penha de Franca,Porvorim, Bardez,
Goa, Through its Designated Partner,
Mr. Judith Fernandez, s/o Donald
Fernandez, major of age, r/o. H. No.
804/2/8A/7, Sapna Garden, Chogm
Road, Porvorim,Bardez, Goa. …...Respondents
Ms. Kalpa Govenkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Venkatesh Ameya Nayak Salatry, Advocate for the Respondents.
Coram :-M. S. SONAK, J.
Date : 30th June, 2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Ms. Kalpa Govenkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and
Mr. Salatry, learned Counsel for the Respondents.
Andreza -2-
2. Rule.
3. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, waives notice.
4. The challenge to this Petition is to the order dated 27.12.2019, by which, the learned Trial Judge has refused to condone the delay of 260 days in filing the written statement.
5. The record indicates that the Petitioner filed two applications seeking extension of time to file written statement and the same were granted since the time was extended up to 90 days in all. The third application of the Petitioner which was filed beyond 90 days, was rejected.
6. The Petitioner did not immediately file for recall of this order and leave to file written statement. Rather, the Petitioner filed such application with a delay of 260 days and it is this application which was dismissed by the impugned order.
Andreza -3-
7. Ms. Govenkar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the Petitioner was a young person of 23 years and, therefore, had certain
difficulties in grasping the issues raised in the plaint and as also the legal
procedures involved in defending the claim. He submits that there were
some problems faced by the Advocate of the Petitioner as well and for all
these reasons, there was delay. She submits that though the delay is
substantial, the same is for bonafide reasons and this is a fit case where the
delay was required to be condoned, if necessary, by imposing some costs on
the Petitioner.
8. Mr. Salatry, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, submits that the
conduct of the Petitioner has been to simply protract the proceedings. He
submits that even after the issues were framed in the suit, no application was
filed for leave to file the written statement. He submits that on account of
the Petitioner's negligence, the progress in the suit has been unnecessarily
delayed. He points out that now the Petitioner seeks to raise a counter claim
which is almost five times the claim raised by the Respondent-Plaintiff. He,
therefore, submits that this Petition be dismissed.
Andreza -4-
9. Rival contentions now fall for my determination.
10. The record does bear out that there was delay of 260 days in filing the application for leave to file written statement beyond 90 days. However, some reasons have been set out by the Petitioner.
11. Thus, there is nothing on record to hold that the reasons set out are malafide or that the sole purpose of the Petitioner was to protract the proceedings. The Petitioner has pleaded his own experience particularly in legal matters. The Petitioner has also pointed out that the issues raised in the plaint were of such complex nature that even his Advocate was unable to immediately grasp the issues and file response.
12. Ordinarily, this cannot be a very good reason because parties are
expected to be diligent. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the
present case and having regard to the age of the Petitioner and his
candidness, the delay can be condoned provided the Petitioner pays
substantial costs to the Respondents for ultimately delaying the proceedings.
Andreza -5-
Since the Petitioner seeks to raise a counter claim, it is only appropriate that
the costs are substantial.
13. Therefore, with a view to grant an additional opportunity to the Petitioner to file his written statement, the impugned order is set aside and the delay in seeking leave to file the written statement is hereby condoned. Since the same reason applies for non-filing of the written statement within the prescribed period of 90 days, leave is now granted to file the written statement.
14. Ms. Govenkar, learned Counsel, pointed out that the written
statement was already filed along with the application seeking condonation of delay. Accordingly, this written statement will now have to be taken on record and the suit will have to proceed accordingly. However, all this is subject to the Petitioner paying costs of 50,000/- to the Respondents ₹ within a period of two weeks from today.
15. These costs will have to be paid to the Respondent or deposited before
the Trial Court within two weeks from today. It is only if the costs are paid
Andreza -6-
or deposited, can the Petitioner have the benefit of the present order.
Otherwise, this Petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any
further reference to this Court.
16. If the costs are deposited, then, the learned Trial Judge will permit the
Respondent herein to withdraw the same unconditionally.
17. The Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
18. All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this
order.
M. S. SONAK, J.
ANDREZA PEREIRA Digitally signed by ANDREZA PEREIRA Date: 2021.07.01 15:05:34 +05'30'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether substantial delay (260 days) in applying for leave to file a written statement can be condoned.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Andreza -1-
Kodewprk United LLP
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court