Allowed

Thakarsi Nanji Keniya and Ors. v. Mr. Dhiraj Panchabhai Savaliaya @ Patel

Bombay HC8 Nov 2023WP/1310/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed writ petition quashing impugned orders refusing to treat reply to temporary injunction application as written statement. Ordered suit to be disposed of within two months and awarded costs with condition precedent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; reply treated as written statement; cross-examination allowed within one month; suit to be decided within two months; Rs.15,000 costs awarded to respondent.

Thakarsi Nanji Keniya and Ors. Vs Mr. Dhiraj… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

14-wp1310-2017.doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1310 OF 2017

¶5

VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV

¶6

Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2023.11.09 11:18:50 +0530

¶7

Thakarsi Nanji Keniya & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Dhiraj Panchabhai Savaliaya Alias Patel … Respondent

¶8

Mr. Pratik Rahade i/by Mr. Sham V. Walve for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Himanshu Nagarkar with Ms. Kashish Bijlani for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶11

DATED : NOVEMBER 8, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

The defendants in a suit for recovery of compensation under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is challenging order of the Trial Court refusing to treat reply to temporary injunction application as written statement.

¶14

From the record, it is apparent that the suit summons were served on the defendants on 4^th February 2016. More than six adjournments were granted to the petitioners for filing written statement. Ultimately, on 2^nd July 2016, the petitioners filed an application for condonation of delay in filing written statement. However, in paragraph 4 of such application defendants stated that they want to adopt say filed to temporary injunction application as

14-wp1310-2017.doc

written statement.

The Trial Court, by the impugned order, rejected such application and also rejected review application.

¶19

Learned advocate for the petitioners relying on judgment of this Court in the case of Kuldeep Umraosingh Ostwal and Another vs. Chandrakant N. Patel and Others reported in 2010(2) Mh.L.J. 689, submitted that this Court had proved practice of filing pursis to treat reply to temporary injunction application as written statement. This Court held that in such case, there is no requirement of the defendant making out a case of existence of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

¶20

Learned advocate for the respondent further pointed out that considering the nature of suit and considering the petitioners’ conduct to delay the decree for possession, the petitioners are not entitled to discretionary relief.

¶21

On perusal of application dated 2^nd July 2016, it appears that the petitioners prayed for treating reply to temporary injunction application as written statement. Therefore, the issue involved is squarely covered by judgment in the case of Kuldeep Umraosingh Ostwal and Another (supra).

¶22

However, as submitted on behalf of the respondent that the suit is at advanced stage. The matter is fixed for arguments. Therefore, for the delay caused in filing such application and failure to move the writ petition earlier, the respondent needs to be compensated in terms of costs. The resultant delay in allowing petitioners to adopt written statement can also be compensated by

¶23

¶24

14-wp1310-2017.doc

¶25

directing Trial Court to decide the suit within the time bound program.

¶26

Hence, following order:

¶27

a) The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. b) The reply filed by the petitioners be treated as written statement.

¶28

c) The petitioners would be entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses within one month from today.

¶29

d) The hearing of the suit shall be completed within one month from today and the suit shall be decided within two months from today.

¶30

e) The petitioners are directed to pay amount of Rs.15,000/- as costs to the respondent.

¶31

f) Payment of costs shall be condition precedent before the petitioners are allowed to participate in hearing of the suit.

¶32

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶33

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶34

Thakarsi Nanji Keniya and Ors. v. Mr. Dhiraj Panchabhai Savaliaya @ Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakarsi Nanji Keniya and Ors. v. Mr. Dhiraj Panchabhai Savaliaya @ Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narhari Kashiram Divekar Decd. Thr. Lhrs Balkrishan Narhari Divekara and Ors. Vs Baban Pandharinath Takle Decd. and Ors.

Aaba Jaganath Shelke and Ors. Vs Tai Digambar Kengar and Ors.

Laxmi Appasaheb Savade Vs Suraj Subhash Lakde and Ors.

Nitin Balasaheb Kudhale and Ors. Vs Ravindra Baburao Angre and Ors.

Tulshiram Shankar More and Anr. Vs Vitthal Sahebrao Mokashi and Ors.

Vijay Ramchandra Saraf and Ors. Vs Arun Ramchandra Saraf (Deceased) Thr. Lr.S