Allowed

Datta Seva Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. v. Ramesh Sadashiv Koltharkar and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Jun 2023WP/2523/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition to set aside an order dismissing the application for condonation of delay and for recording a written statement. The Court held the delay was excusable due to pending settlement talks and allowed the application subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay and taking written statement on record allowed; Petitioner to pay costs of Rs.25,000 to Respondents.

Datta Seva Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. Vs Ramesh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1/3

¶2

11wp2523-17s.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2523 OF 2017

¶5

Datta Seva Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Ramnath Sadashiv Koltharkar and Ors. … Respondents

¶6

— —

¶7

Mr. Satyajeet H. Joshi with Mr. Chinmay Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhlaque M.S. Solkar for Respondent Nos.1A to 1C.

¶8

— —

¶9

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : June 26, 2023.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

The petitioner's application for condonation of delay of 285

¶12

days in filing the written statement and for taking the written statement on record came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 1^st February, 2017.

¶13

Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAYASARAM ASARAMMANDAWGAD MANDAWGAD Date: 2023.07.07 20:12:37 +0530

¶14

Heard Mr. Satyajeet H. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for

¶15

the Petitioner and Mr. Akhlaque M.S. Solkar, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1A to 1C.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶17

the petitioner is a pathpedhi who had purchased the subject premises

sanjay_mandawgad

2/3

11wp2523-17s.doc

from the original defendant no.2, which is the subject mater of challenge in S.C. Suit No.133 of 2013. He submits that an appearance was caused on 10^th February, 2014, after the service of summons, as there was settlement talks between the parties, the written statement could not filed so as to not jeopardize the amicable settlement of the issue. He would further submit that the trial Court has disbelieved the factual position as the same is not reflected in the roznama. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kailash vs. Nanhku and Others [(2005) 4 SCC 480], and in particular in paragraph 33 thereof.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1A to 1C, legal heirs of the original deceased-plaintiff strongly opposes the application. He submits that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, prescribe a period of 30 days for filing of written statement from the date of service of summons and there is no sufficient explanation tendered for condonation of delay and for taking of written statement on record.

¶23

Considered the submissions of the parties.

¶24

It is settled position that the period for filing of the written

sanjay_mandawgad

3/3

11wp2523-17s.doc

statement provided under Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC is directory and not mandatory. The reason stated in the application is that there were settlement talks between the petitioner and the Respondents for amicable settlement of the dispute. This position is not stated to be disputed. The trial Court has rejected the explanation as details of the meeting were not provided. The fact remains that for a considerable period from 12^th June, 2014 to 31^st July, 2015, the Court was vacant/on leave and as such, the fact of ongoing settlement could not have been recorded in the roznama.

¶29

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the evidence has not yet commenced. In my opinion, considering that the trial has not been commenced, in the interest of justice, the application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay and for taking on record the written statement deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-. The costs to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent Nos.1A to 1C within a period of two weeks from today.

¶30

The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.

¶31

[This order is corrected pursuant to the Speaking to the Minutes order dated 7^th July, 2023.]

¶32

sanjay_mandawgad

Datta Seva Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. v. Ramesh Sadashiv Koltharkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Datta Seva Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd. v. Ramesh Sadashiv Koltharkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Mahammedhussain Siraj Mulla Vs Junnadbasha Urf Babasaheb Siraj Mulla and Ors.

Shri. Ajaykumar Vishnu Dasture Vs Gracious Herbals Pvt. Ltd.

Jagan@ Jagannath Pandu Jadhav Vs Gopinath Bhiwa Jadhav and Ors.

M/S. K.J. Realties Thr. Kalyan Jagannath Jadhav Vs Vijay Tukaram Raundal and Ors.

Mr. Shivek Ramesh Dhar Vs Mrs. Madhumita Bhainsora

Tejas Bhagwat Chabukswar and Anr. Vs Mrs. Ambubai Nagnath Mode and Ors.