Allowed¶8

Ganesh Ramchandra Naik v. Manohar Krishna Madhavi (M.K.)

Bombay HC19 Sept 2025AEP/17/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; written statement to election petition; Order VIII Rule 1 CPC directory; 26 days delay; returned candidate; Cabinet Minister; Election Petition No. 38 of 2025; prayer clause (a); Bombay High Court OOCJ; N.J. Jamadar J.; decision dated 10 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 26-day delay in filing the written statement to Election Petition No. 38 of 2025; the applicant (returned candidate) permitted to file the written statement in the registry on or before 13 November 2025. ¶8

Ganesh Ramchandra Naik vs Manohar Krishna Madhavi (M.K.) — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:BHC-OS:20711

¶2

2-ep-aep-17 in 38-2025.doc

¶3

Varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2025 IN

¶7

ELECTION PETITION NO. 38 OF 2025

¶8

Ganesh Ramchadra Naik } Applicant V/s. Manohar Krishna Madhavi (M.K) } Respondent

¶9

Ms. Shriya Awale (through VC) i/by Asim Sarode, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Datar (through VC) with Druti Datar, for the respondent.

¶10

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J. DATED : 10TH NOVEMBER 2025

¶11

P.C:

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

This application is preferred by the respondent/ a returned

¶14

candidate to condone the delay of 26 days in filing the written statement to the Election Petition. In the application, it is averred that the respondent being a Cabinet Minister was busy in administrative and political responsibilities and, therefore, the written statement could not be filed within the period of 30 days from the date of the service of Writ of Summons.

¶15

The original petitioner has not filed an affidavit-in-reply.

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

Varsha

¶18

2-ep-aep-17 in 38-2025.doc

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons

¶20

ascribed in the application seeking extension of time for filing the written statement are not justifiable. Therefore, the application be rejected.

¶21

Evidently, the Writ of Summons was served on the applicant on 4^th June 2025. The application seeking permission to file the written statement after expiry of 30 days, was filed on 27^th July 2025. The delay is not inordinate. The provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are construed to be directory.

¶22