Allowed

State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secy. Agriculture and Padum Dept., Agri. Ministry, Mumbai and Others v. Shalikram Raghunathji Ramteke and Others

Bombay HC14 Aug 2024WP/258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned order of the trial court that had rejected the petitioners' application to file a written statement in a suit filed in 2018. The Court directed the trial court to admit the statement and decide the suit within one year.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioners permitted to file written statement; suit to be decided within one year.

State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secy… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:9952

¶2

933-wp-258-22.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

Writ Petition (WP) No. 258 of 2022

¶6

The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Padum Department, Agricultural Ministry, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Shalikram Raghunathji Ramteke and others

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶10

Court's or Judge's Order

¶11

Shri N.A.Autkar, AGP for the Petitioners/State. Shri R.V.Shiralkar, Advocate for the respondent no.1.

¶12

CORAM : N.R.BORKAR, J. DATED : 14^th AUGUST, 2024.

¶13

The respondent no.1 herein has filed the suit against the present petitioners and respondent nos. 2 to 4 for damages.

¶14

By order dated 2^nd July, 2018, the trial Court directed the suit to proceed without written statement of the present petitioners.

¶15

By the order impugned in this petition dated 4^th October, 2019, the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioners to permit

¶16

SKNair

¶17

2 933-wp-258-22.odt

¶18

them to file written statement on record by recalling the order dated 2^nd July, 2018.

¶19

I have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for the petitioners/State and learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and perused the impugned order.

¶20

The trial Court has rejected the application by taking very hyper technical view of the matter. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioners to file the written statement. The order impugned is, therefore, set aside. The trial Court shall take the written statement filed by the present petitioners on record and then shall decide the suit in accordance with the law.

¶21

Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2018, the trial Court shall endeavor to dispose the suit within one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of in above

¶23

terms.

¶24

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶25

SKNair

State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secy. Agriculture and Padum Dept., Agri. Ministry, Mumbai and Others v. Shalikram Raghunathji Ramteke and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maha. Thr. Principal Secy. Agriculture and Padum Dept., Agri. Ministry, Mumbai and Others v. Shalikram Raghunathji Ramteke and Others

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

Mahesh S/O Shyamrao Bhute Vs Competent Authority Slum, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur and Others

Union Biblical Seminary Association, Thr. Dr. William Sarasamma Annie Principal/Trustees/Secy. Anr. Vs Union Biblical Seminary Society, Yavatmal Thr. President, Dr. David G. Samuel and Ors.

Prashant S/O Vasantrao Deotale Vs Rajesh S/O Ramchandra Admane and Others

Sau. Monita Nagendra Dethe Vs the Additional Collector, Yavatmal and Others

Sham Khairu Naurangabadi Vs the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mangrulpir, Washim and Others

Ushabai W/O Rajendra Shivaruke (Ku. Usha Narayan Rajuke) Vs the Additional Collector, Nagpur and Others