Allowed

Asmita Rajesh Hoble v. Rajesh Ramnath Hoble

Bombay HC28 Jul 2021WP/220/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay. The Court found sufficient cause due to pending settlement talks and legal aid delays, allowing the written statement.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.07.2019 set aside; application for condonation of delay allowed; written statement accepted as part of record.

Asmita Rajesh Hoble Vs Rajesh Ramnath Hoble — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

903 WP 220 of 2021.doc

¶2

Jose

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.220 OF 2021

¶4

MRS. ASMITA RAJESH HOBLE D/o Mr. Ramnath Hoble, aged 44 years, r/o H. No.89, Nadkarni, Near Vihar Building, Goulem Bhat, Chimbel, Tiswadi, Goa. ... Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

MR. RAJESH RAMNATH HOBLE s/o Mr. Ramnath Hoble, aged around 44 years, r/o H.No 64, Near Ganesh Temple, Bogda, Mormugao, Goa.

¶7

... Respondent.

¶8

Ms. Prithvi Bandekar, Advocate for the Petitioner .

¶9

None for the Respondent.

¶10

Coram: M.S. SONAK, J.

¶11

Date: 28^th July 2021.

¶12

: ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

1. Heard Ms. Prithvi Bandekar for the Petitioner.

¶14

2. On 22.06.2021, notice was issued in this matter and it was made clear that this petition will be disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶15

3. The record indicates that the service was completed on 09.07.2021. There is a report of the Bailiff confirming service.

¶16

4. On 27.07.2021, when the matter was called out, there was no

¶17

appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Therefore, the matter was

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

28th July 2021

¶20

903 WP 220 of 2021.doc

¶21

adjourned to see if the Respondent appears either by himself or through
an Advocate. However, even today, the same position continues.
Accordingly, this petition is taken up for final disposal, consistent with
the order made on 22.06.2021.

¶22

5. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶23

6. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.07.2019 by which the learned Trial Judge has dismissed the Petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay for filing of the written statement.

¶24

7.Ms. Bandekar the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
this is a matter where the Petitioner-Defendant was represented by
Advocate Sunil Loran before the Trial Court. She submits that settlement
talks were going on between the parties and therefore, this Advocate
failed to file any written statement within the prescribed period. She
submits that at a later stage, this Advocate did apply for condonation of
delay with leave to file the written statement. She submits that this
application was duly supported by an affidavit of the Petitioner. She
submits that there is nothing on record to indicate that any reply was
filed by the Respondent controverting the statements made in the
application. She submits that even after the impugned order was made,
Advocate Loran stopped appearing for the Petitioner. She submits that
the Petitioner had to apply for and obtain services of an Advocate under
the Legal Aid Scheme. She submits that having regard to all these

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

28th July 2021

¶27

903 WP 220 of 2021.doc

¶28

circumstances, the delay in filing the written statement was required to be
condoned.

¶29

8.I have considered the submissions made by Ms. Bandekar and also
perused the record. In the application seeking condonation of delay, there
was a clear statement backed by an affidavit that settlement talks were on.
At least on record, there is nothing to indicate that this statement was
controverted by filing any counter-affidavit. Be that as it may, having
regard to the overall circumstances of the matter and the position in
which the Petitioner is placed, there were no circumstances to doubt the
statement made by the Petitioner on affidavit that settlement talks were
indeed on. The Advocate for the Petitioner, possibly mistakenly, felt that
until such settlement talks fructify or terminate, it might not be in the
interest of the settlement talks to file a written statement and to
precipitate the matter. The Petitioner has not gained anything by not
filing the written statement in time, but rather the Petitioner is now the
loser.

¶30

9.The Petitioner has placed on record the orders of appointments of
Legal Aid Counsel to represent her in the proceedings before the Trial
Court. If all such circumstances are considered cumulatively, then,
sufficient cause was shown by the Petitioner for failing to file the written
statement within the prescribed period. The impugned order does not
take into account all such circumstances and the application has been
dismissed by observing that the Petitioner has taken the matter casually.

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

28th July 2021

¶33

903 WP 220 of 2021.doc

¶34

10.In matters of this nature, particularly when the Petitioner was
relying on legal aid, the learned Trial Court should have appreciated that
the Petitioner had to essentially go by the advice of her Advocate. The
Petitioner has made efforts to secure legal aid, after, her Advocate stopped
appearing on her behalf. The allegation made by the Petitioner's husband
in the suit seeking divorce is that it is the Petitioner who is refusing to
stay with her husband. The plaint also refers to settlement talks. The
Petitioner, claims to be interested in saving the marriage and therefore
contesting the suit for divorce. From the record, it cannot be said that the
Petitioner, despite the circumstances in which she is placed has taken
matters casually and was therefore not entitled to some indulgence.

¶35

11.Having regard to all the circumstances, which are to be considered
cumulatively, sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay in
filing the written statement.

¶36

12.Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.07.2019 is set aside.
The application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement
is allowed. The written statement which is already placed on record is
now to be accepted as part of the record.

¶37

13.Ms. Bandekar states that now that she has been engaged in the
matter, she feels that some additional facts are necessary to be stated in
the written statement. If that is so, it is always open to the Petitioner to
seek to leave to amend the written statement.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

28th July 2021

¶40

903 WP 220 of 2021.doc

¶41

14. The Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

15. All concerned to act based on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶43

M.S. SONAK, J.

¶44

Page 5 of 5

¶45

28th July 2021

Asmita Rajesh Hoble v. Rajesh Ramnath Hoble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asmita Rajesh Hoble v. Rajesh Ramnath Hoble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pundalik Verlekar., Vs Baiju Jacob.

Manohar Krishna Vaze @ Manohar Crisna Oze and 9 Ors., Vs Waman Krishna Vaze and 15 Ors.

Manohar Krishna Vaze @ Manohar Crisna Oze and 9 Ors., Vs Waman Krishna Vaze and 15 Ors.

Ramesh Vassudev Sarmalkar and Anr. Vs Sociedade Verlekar, Thr. Its Administrators, Ashok Roulu Verlekar and 6 Ors.

Arvind Gajanan Shenvi Ghatkar and Anr. Vs the Mazania of the Temple of Shri Mahalaxmi and Its Affilates of Panaji, Rep. by Its Attorney

Vijay Harmalkar Vs Village Panchayat of Verla Canca, Thr. Its Secretary