Allowed

Swastik Industries and Ors. v. Madhusudan N Rana

Bombay HC20 Jan 2023WP/9473/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Bombay quashed an impugned order dismissing a suit under Order 17 Rule 2 and Order 9 Rule 8 CPC for want of prosecution. The court set aside the dismissal and restored the suit to the trial court on condition that the petitioners pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order of dismissal; restored suit R.A.E. Suit No. 62 of 2017 to the file of Small Causes Court, Mumbai on payment of costs of Rs. 25,000 within two weeks.

Swastik Industries and Ors. Vs Madhusudan N Rana — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

sr.914.9473.21..doc

¶2

Harish

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9473 OF 2021

¶5

Swastik Industries & Ors. V/s.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Madhusudan N. Rana …Respondent

¶8

Mr. Ashok R. Pande i/b Shobhit Shukla for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mr. R. D. Ojha i/b Ridhima Mangaonkar for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 20^th JANUARY, 2023

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Heard Mr. Pande, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. R. D. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶13

By impugned order dated 24^th September, 2021 the Suit bearing R.A.E. Suit No. 62 of 2017 filed by the Petitioners was dismissed on the ground that although the matter is fixed for hearing, the Plaintiffs failed to adduce oral evidence. It is observed that although, sufficient opportunities were granted to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence.

¶14

Mr. Pande, learned counsel appearing for the

¶15

¶16

sr.914.9473.21..doc

¶17

Petitioners state that he was personally suffering from Covid and therefore, no steps could be taken to adduce oral evidence.

¶18

Mr. Ojha, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent on instructions states that if some cost is paid, then the Respondent has no objection for setting aside the order of dismissal of Suit.

¶19

In the facts and circumstances of this case, order dated 24^th September, 2021 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court at Mumbai below Exhibit 1 in R.A.E. Suit No. 62 of 2017 dismissing the Suit under Order 17, Rule 2 r/w Order 9 Rule 8 of CPC, 1908 for want of prosecution is quashed and set aside on the condition that the Petitioners pay cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the Respondent within a period of two weeks from today.

¶20

In view of setting aside the order dated 24^th September, 2021 said R.A.E. Suit No. 62 of 2017 is restored to file of Small Causes Court at Mumbai.

¶21

Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶22

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶23

Swastik Industries and Ors. v. Madhusudan N Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swastik Industries and Ors. v. Madhusudan N Rana

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

Smt. Vijayalaxmi Shivram Redij and Ors. Vs Ravishankar Vijayshankar Sharma

Mrs. Shamima Mohammed Khatoon Vs Mrs. Rubina Mohd. Rafique Makandar

Suhas B Marathe Vs Mahadeo Ganesh Joglekar and Ors.

Amol Bhaskar Sulakha Vs Chirantan Dinkar Sulakhe and Anr.

Pushpa Kishanlal Jain Vs Delna Cyurus Irani and Anr.

Amol Bhaskar Sulakha Vs Chirantan Dinkar Sulakhe and Anr.