Gurvinder S/O Balbeer Singh Dhillon and Another vs M/S. Picasoo Associates Nagpur Thr. Partners, Anil and Avinash S/O. W. Admane

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:4431

¶2

915-WP 1164-2024 (J).odt 1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1164 OF 2024

¶4

1] Shri Gurvinder s/o Balbeer Singh Dhillon,

¶5

Aged about 39 years, Occupation : Business/agriculturist, r/o Plot No. 910/ Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Near Kabir Nagar, Near Gurudwara, Uppalwadi, Nagpur - 440 026 (Mah.)

¶6

2] Shri Rajvinder Singh S/O Balbeer Singh Dhillon, aged abut 34 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, r/o 402, Royal Court, Canal Road, Panchasheel Theatre, Ramdaspeth, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur-440010 …. PETITIONER

¶7

….VERSUS….

¶8

M/s. Picasoo Associates (Earlier M/s.

¶9

Picasso Planners) a registered Partnership firm bearing Registration No. NG000003878, having it's registered Office at Plot No. 47, NIT Colony, Vishwakarma Nagar, Nagpur-440 027 though it's Partners Shri Anil and Avinash s/o's Wamanrao Admane. ... RESPONDENT

¶10

Ms. Disha C. Kamwani, Advocate h/f. Shri M. Anilkumar for petitioner. Shri A.K.Tripathi, Advocate for respondent.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. DATE : 23/04/2025

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

915-WP 1164-2024 (J).odt 2/4

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 12/10/2023 passed below Exh. 37 in Spl. Civil Suit No. 828/2021 by 2^nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur.

¶16

The application was filed for setting aside no written statement order passed against defendant nos. 2 and 3 and for permission to file written statement. It is contended by defendant nos. 2 and 3 that, they had engaged advocate to defend on their behalf and the advocate also filed ‘Vakalatnama’ and sought time to file written statement. It is further contended that, in spite of approaching the office of their earlier counsel and in spite of providing all relevant documents, their earlier counsel had not filed written statement on their behalf. It was informed to them by the learned counsel for defendant no. 1 in the 2^nd week of December, 2022 that, they need to file written statement. After enquiry to their previous counsel, no satisfactory reply was given by their counsel. The present counsel appeared in the

¶17

915-WP 1164-2024 (J).odt 3/4

¶18

matter on 23/12/2022 on behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 3. After inspection of record, it was revealed that the previous counsel did not file written statement and reply and thus, the learned Trial Court proceeded the matter without written statement on 19/07/2022 against the defendant nos. 2 and 3. Therefore, they immediately approached to their previous counsel and demanded for return of the documents, however, certain documents were not given. So in short, the entire blame is put by the defendants on their previous counsel.

¶19

The learned Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that, the defendant nos. 2 and 3 have not placed on record any document showing that any action has been taken against their previous counsel and blamed the counsel for delay in filing the written statement. Even the Trial Court observed in the order that, the defendants appeared on 10/01/2022 and the application filed on 20/01/2023 and delay is not satisfactory explained. However, in para 3 of the application, it is mentioned that the present counsel appeared for the first time on 23/12/2022 and he inspected the record.

¶20

915-WP 1164-2024 (J).odt 4/4

¶21

They came to know that “no written statement order” is passed against them. Be that as it may, it is a fact that, both the defendants were not diligent in filing their written statement specifically when they were aware about the fact that, by which time, the written statement has to be filed. As such, though I am inclined to allow the application in the interest of justice so as to the rights of the defendants would not be defeated due to negligence on part of their counsel, however, defendant nos. 2 and 3 are also equally responsible. As such, the present petition is allowed , subject to costs of Rs. 25,000/- for the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff.

¶22

The amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the plaintiff or to be deposited in the learned Trial Court for the plaintiff by 10/06/2025.

¶23

After deposit of costs, the learned Trial Court is directed to take on record the written statement on behalf of defendant nos. 2 and 3.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of .

¶25

(Smt. M.S.Jawalkar, J.)

¶26

B.T.Khapekar

¶27

Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/04/2025 11:09:08

Gurvinder S/O Balbeer Singh Dhillon and Another v. M/S. Picasoo Associates Nagpur Thr. Partners, Anil and Avinash S/O. W. Admane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurvinder S/O Balbeer Singh Dhillon and Another v. M/S. Picasoo Associates Nagpur Thr. Partners, Anil and Avinash S/O. W. Admane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dipak S/O Waghuji Satpute and Another Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

Vidarbha Premier Society, through Its Special Recovery Officer, Rajesh Deorao Savai vs Suresh Ramkisan Parate

Shankuntala Wd/O Ramkuber Tripathi (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Ajay Ramkuber Tripathi and Others vs Abhishek Ramshchandra Gautam and Others

Vidarbha Irrigation Devpt. Corp. Thr. Exe. Engineer, Minor Irri. Division (Construction) Vs Dhruptabai Prakash Shingade and Others

Ashok Pundlik Chaudhari vs Pundlik S/O Dattu Kalapad and Others

Vidarbha Irrigation Devpt. Corp. Thr. Exe. Engineer, Minor Irri. Division (Construction), Washim Vs Mahada @ Mahadeo Ganpat Pawar and Others