Allowed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.. v. Ramchandra Shripati Parge

Bombay HC12 Jan 2022WP/5996/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition to set aside the trial court's 'No cross' order. The court accepted undertakings from the petitioners to complete cross-examination and expedite the suit, while permitting the respondent to withdraw 70% of the decretal amount on undertaking.

What did the court decide?

The impugned 'No cross' order is set aside. Respondent allowed to withdraw 70% of decretal amount on undertaking.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

WP-5996-2021.doc

¶2

BDP-SPS -TAC

¶3

BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signedby BHARATDASHARATHPANDIT Date: 2022.01.1312:50:29 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5996 OF 2021

¶7

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ….. Petitioners.

¶8

V/s

¶9

RAMCHANDRA SHRIPATI PARGE …..Respondent

¶10

Mr. Samir A. Vaidya for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Chaitanya Nikte a/w Mr. Hitanshu Jain for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

¶13

 DATE: JANUARY 12, 2022

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

1] After ex parte decree was passed against the Petitioners, same

¶16

was set aside on 30/07/2016, subject to deposit of 70% of the decretal

¶17

amount. Withdrawal was permitted by Respondent/Plaintiff subject to

¶18

furnishing bank guarantee.

¶19

2] The Special Civil Suit as such, was restored to the file.

¶20

1/6

¶21

WP-5996-2021.doc

¶22

3]Thereafter, it appears that Petitioners filed Written Statement
and instead of cooperating with the Court below in expeditious
disposal of the suit as was directed, adjournments were sought,
resulting Court below passing “No cross” order.

¶23

4]Exhibit-53 – application moved by the present

¶24

Petitioners/Defendants for recalling of “No cross” order came to be
rejected on 20/11/2019. As such, this Petition.

¶25

5]I am informed that the order impugned below Exhibit-53, was
initially challenged before the learned District Judge. However, since
Misc. Civil Application was not maintainable, same came to be
withdrawn and present Petition is preferred.

¶26

6]Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are,
documents and affidavit were filed by the Plaintiff vide Exhibits 45
and 47 on 01/03/2019. The legal head of the Petitioners/Defendants
was on leave and thereafter left the Petitioners’ employment. As such,
appropriate instructions were not received, resulting into on

¶27

2/6

¶28

WP-5996-2021.doc

¶29

12/06/2019 Court passing “No say” order and accordingly matter
came to be adjourned on 09/09/2019. On 09/09/2019, trial in the
suit was not attended by the Petitioners and “No cross” order came to
be passed. He further submitted that for default of lawyer client may
not be made to suffer. Apart from above, his contentions are, position
of legal head of the Company remained vacant for considerable time,
as such instructions in the matter could not be received resulting into
causing delay in trial. However, there was no malafide act on the part
of the Petitioners to delay the trial. He would further submit that the
Petitioners can be put to reasonable conditions.

¶30

7]Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submits that the Court
below has already shown indulgence once while setting aside the ex
parte decree dated 18/12/2014. According to him, trial was to be
expeditiously decided. However, Petitioners are causing unnecessary
delay in the trial, particularly considering their act of not cooperating
with the trial court and filing the proceedings before the wrong forum.

¶31

8] Considered submissions.

¶32

3/6

¶33

WP-5996-2021.doc

¶34

9]Intentional delay on the part of the Petitioners in expeditious
disposal of the trial can be verymuch noticed from the following
conduct of the Petitioners.

¶35

10]Initially, when the suit was filed, Petitioners chose to remain
absent, resulting into passing ex parte decree on 18/12/2014.
Learned District Judge condoned the delay caused in moving
application under Order IX Rule 13, subject to certain conditions.
Thereafter, sometime in 2018 ex parte decree came to be set aside, as
is informed by Mr. Vaidya learned Counsel for the Petitioners. After ex
parte decree was set aside, Petitioners were given chance to cross-
examine the witness of the Plaintiff which they have failed to. As a
consequence, “No cross” order was passed on 09/09/2019 and
thereafter Petitioners filed proceedings questioning the said “No cross”
order before the wrong forum till filing of the present Petition. As
such, intentional delay on the part of the Petitioners can be very much
inferred.

¶36

11]However, learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vaidya has

¶37

given assurance on instructions that in case if “No cross” order is set

¶38

4/6

¶39

WP-5996-2021.doc

¶40

aside, Petitioners shall complete the cross-examination of the witness
on the given date, which is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.
Apart from above, the assurance that Petitioners shall not seek any
adjournment in the pending suit and shall extend all cooperation in
expeditious disposal of the suit is also taken on record as an
undertaking.

¶41

12]Apart from above, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff
submits that condition put-forth by the Court below of executing
banking guarantee while permitting the Respondent to withdraw 70%
of the decretal amount, if modified, he shall be consenting for setting
aside “No cross” order.

¶42

13]In view of above, following order is passed:-

¶43

O R D E R

¶44

(i) The order impugned is set aside.

¶45

(ii) Statement made by Mr. Vaidya, learned Counsel for
the Petitioners that Petitioners shall be completing
cross-examination on the next date of hearing and shall
not seek any adjournment is accepted as an

¶46

5/6

¶47

WP-5996-2021.doc

¶48

undertaking to this Court.

¶49

(iii) Respondent/Plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the
decretal amount to the extent of 70% as reflected in
the order dated 30/07/2016 passed in MCA No.219 of
2016 by the Adhoc District Judge-1, Pune on plain
undertaking to the said Court that in case if suit is
dismissed, he shall redeposit the said amount as shall
be directed by the Court below.

¶50

(iv) Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶51

(NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶52

6/6

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.. v. Ramchandra Shripati Parge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.. v. Ramchandra Shripati Parge

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

Mr. Pranjal Vinod Paraskar Thr. Poa.Mr. Vinod Ramrao Paraskar Vs Dr. Mayura Pranjal Paraskar

Ashwini Vidyadhar Chikane Vs Vidyadhar Sampat Chikane

Sou. Komal Yogesh Narde Vs Yogesh Shankar Narde

Divyakanth C. Shah Vs Manilal Fulabhai Barot Decd. through Lhrs and Anr.

Sou. Yogita Manish Pawar Vs Shri. Manish Sudhakar Pawar

Sou. Vaishali Ashish Chitale Vs Shri. Ashish Sharad Chitale