Dismissed

Kavita Narayan Solunke through Gpa Narayan Rangnathrao Solunke v. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and Others

Bombay HC7 Dec 2023WP/14975/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order accepting a non-signed, non-verified written statement by respondents in a civil suit, holding such defects curable and the writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application to discard the written statement was rejected; the writ petition is dismissed.

Kavita Narayan Solunke through Gpa Narayan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 959.WP-14975-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 14975 OF 2023

¶4

KAVITA NARAYAN SOLUNKE THROUGH GPA NARAYAN RANGNATHRAO
SOLUNKE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mrs. Solunke Savita N.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. V. M. Chate

¶8

 CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
 DATE : 7th DECEMBER 2023.

¶9

Per Court :

¶10

. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

1. Being aggrieved by order dated 22.08.2017 passed below Exhibit103 and order dated 01.11.2023 below Exhibit-168, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner is the original plaintiff who is prosecuting RCS No.108/2015 for the reliefs of declaration and injunction.

¶12

2. The respondent no.1 is the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation. The respondent nos. 2 to 10 are the officers/ public servants rendering services with the establishment of Municipal Corporation. In pursuance of the summons, they filed written statement at Exhibit-53. Thereafter there was an amendment to plaint. They filed amended written statement at Exhibit no.103. According to the

¶13

2 959.WP-14975-2023.doc

¶14

petitioner, the written statement filed by the respondents was not in
accordance with Order 6 Rule 14 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
An order of read and recorded was passed below Exhibit-103.

¶15

3.The petitioner specifically raised an objection for the written
statement by submitting an application at Exhibit-168 and prayed to
outrightly discard the written statement and to treat as if there is no
written statement. The respondents filed Say to the application. The
application is rejected by order dated 01.11.2023.

¶16

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the written
statement which is at Exhibit No.103 has not been signed by the
defendants and there is no verification. It is against the provision of
Order 6 Rule 14, 15 of CPC. Such a written statement is no written
statement in the eye of law. Learned Counsel submits that this aspect of
matter has not been properly appreciated. She submits that the
impugned order is an abuse of process of law. The same is causing
prejudice to the petitioner.

¶17

5.The written statement of the respondents appears to be composite
which is at Exhibit-103. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in
submitting that the written statement has neither been signed, nor
verified by respondents filing written statement. However I am of the
view that it is a curable effect. The learned Judge has also directed the
defendants to file written statement in consonance with provision of
law.

¶18

3 959.WP-14975-2023.doc

¶19

6.Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the
provision of Order 8 Rule 1 to buttress the submission that such written
statement should not have been accepted. The course adopted by
learned Jude in the impugned order is permissible in law. The
submissions of learned Counsel are hyper technical in nature. If the
defects are curable then all the steps need to be taken so as to facilitate
adjudication on the merits of the matter.

¶20

7. I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.

¶21

 [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]

¶22

Najee b .

Kavita Narayan Solunke through Gpa Narayan Rangnathrao Solunke v. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavita Narayan Solunke through Gpa Narayan Rangnathrao Solunke v. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation and Others

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

Waraji Eknath Mudhale and Others Vs Dhondiba Ganapati Adagale and Another

Anandi Eliyas Amolik Vs Sureshchandra Shivnarayan Sharma and Ors.

Ramzani Khan Aulad Khan and Another Vs Late Aniskhan Ramzanikhan (Died) and Other

Dagadu Apparao Kharat Thr Lrs Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ankita Gitesh Kulkarni Vs Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni

Ankita W/O. Gitesh Kulkarni and Another Vs Gitesh Umakant Kulkarni and Others