Disposed

Devendra Kishor Kale v. Vimalbai Somnath More and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2024WP/1521/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant No.3, a subsequent purchaser impleaded in a 2010 suit, challenged rejection of his application to set aside a 'No WS' order. The High Court condoned the 3.5-year delay on medical grounds, subject to Rs.10,000 costs, allowed him to file the written statement, quashed the No WS order, and sought expeditious trial disposal.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned subject to Rs.10,000 costs to Plaintiff; order dated 22.07.2015 ('No WS') quashed; Defendant No.3 permitted to file written statement; suit to be decided within 8 months.

Devendra Kishor Kale Vs Vimalbai Somnath More and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

25.wp.1521.20.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1521 OF 2020

¶6

Devendra Kishor Kale Petitioner

¶7

..(Orig. Defendant No.3)

¶8

Versus

¶9

Vimalbai Somnath More and Ors...Respondents

¶10

Mr. Gurudas S. Gorwadkar, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Rushikesh G. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶12

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:MARCH 04, 2024.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Gorwadkar, learned Advocate for Petitioner and

¶15

Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶16

2. Writ Petition takes exception to the impugned order passed

¶17

in Application filed below Exhibit “83” in Regular Civil Suit No.193 of
2010 dated 13.11.2019 which is at Exhibit “E” - page No.107 of the
Writ Petition.

¶18

3. By virtue of the impugned order, Application filed by Defendant No.3 for setting aside “No WS” order dated 22.07.2015 and for permitting Defendant No.3 to file his written statement stands rejected.

¶19

1 of 5

¶20

25.wp.1521.20.doc

¶21

4. Suit is filed in the year 2010 seeking a declaration and cancellation of the Power of Attorney executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 is a subsequent purchaser who has been impleaded on 02.04.2015. It is informed by Mr. Gorwadkar that some portion of the original Suit property has been transferred by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed dated 02.12.2013 and in that view of the matter, Defendant No.3 has been impleaded. He would inform the Court that Defendant No.3 appeared before the Court for the first time after receipt of summons on 09.04.2015 and ideally ought to have been filed his written statement by 09.05.2015. He would submit that Application was preferred for the first time for setting aside of the “No WS” order passed on 22.07.2015 after a delay of more than 3 and ½ years.

¶22

5. Mr. Patil has drawn my attention to the Application filed for setting aside of the “No WS” order and would contend that there is no averment made for seeking condonation of delay and the reasons given therein are vague and improper and no adequate details of the cause of action, rather sufficient cause has been explained.

¶23

6. I have perused the Application dated 14.02.2019 and more specifically paragraph No.1 thereof and the reasons for the delay stated therein by Defendant No.3. The reasons pertain to the medical condition of Defendant No.3 as also with respect to the instructions

¶24

2 of 5

¶25

25.wp.1521.20.doc

¶26

required to be given to his Advocate. Admittedly, Defendant No.3 is a
purchaser of a part of the Suit property by a Registered Sale Deed
dated 02.12.2013. Non-suiting the Defendant No.3 at this stage
without permitting him to file his written statement would be harsh,
though admittedly there has been delay on his part in filing the written
statement. One of the other submissions made by the learned
Advocate for Respondents is that the matter is now closed for final
hearing. This however is not true.

¶27

7. The learned Trial Court while dismissing Application has sought details about the medical condition of Defendant No.3 which prevented him from attending the Court towards sufficient cause. That ought not to have been called upon in view of the specific facts mentioned by the Applicant in his Application.

¶28

8. Be that as it may, the delay of 3 and ½ years in the facts and circumstances of the present case deserve to be condoned in view of the reasons mentioned by the Applicant in his Application dated 14.02.2019 subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid the Plaintiff. The amount of costs shall be paid to the Plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today and receipt of payment of costs shall be placed before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court is directed to accept the same on record and only thereafter allow Defendant No.3 to file his written statement which shall be filed within

¶29

3 of 5

¶30

25.wp.1521.20.doc

¶31

a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶32

9. I am informed that the next date before the learned Trial

¶33

Court is on 15.03.2024, on which date the Court shall pass suitable
directions.

¶34

10. Needless to state that the order dated 22.07.2015 stands quashed and set aside and Application dated 14.02.2019 stands allowed subject to fulfillment of the aforesaid condition as directed.

¶35

11. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶36

12. At the joint request of both the learned Advocates, learned Trial Court is requested by this Court to determine, adjudicate and decide Regular Civil Suit No.193 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and within a period of 8 months from today and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶37

13. It is clarified that parties shall not take any unnecessary adjournments and the Trial Court shall grant adjournment only if it is utmost necessary.

¶38

14. Parties are directed to cooperate with the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the Suit proceedings.

¶39

15. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open before the learned Trial Court.

¶40

4 of 5

¶41

25.wp.1521.20.doc

¶42

16. With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and

¶43

disposed.

¶44

 [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶45

Ajay

¶46

Digitally signed by AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE UGALMUGALE Date: 2024.03.04 18:08:09 +0530

¶47

5 of 5

Devendra Kishor Kale v. Vimalbai Somnath More and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kishor Kale v. Vimalbai Somnath More and Ors.

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

M/S. Novelty Power and Infratec Ltd. Vs M/S. H. v. Industries Thru Prop. Mr. Kolekadi v. Shetty

Haribhau Eknath Yadav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.

Litolier Artefacts Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Authorized Representation vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Asif Hasmat Ali Khan vs State of Maharashtra

Umesh Chandrashekhar Shetty @ Anna vs State of Maharashtra

Ripunjoy Umakant Doley vs State of Maharashtra