Allowed¶21

Nirmala Satish Kothari v. Mangal Anandrao Avhad

Bombay HC30 Jan 2025WP/1245/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition — acceptance of written statement filed beyond 90 days — Order VIII CPC — amendment directory, not mandatory — Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (MANU/SC/0912/2002) relied on — defendant's valuable right — impugned trial court order quashed and set aside — writ allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) — costs Rs. 5,000/- payable within six weeks — Bombay HC Aurangabad — Kishore C. Sant, J. — 24.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) — i.e., the application for acceptance of the written statement allowed and the impugned trial court order to be quashed and set aside (as per the petitioner's prayer in ¶14) — subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- costs to the respondent–original plaintiff within six weeks. ¶21

Nirmala Satish Kothari vs Mangal Anandrao Avhad — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be allowed and the trial court's rejection of the petitioner–defendant's application for acceptance of her written statement (said to have been filed beyond the 90-day period under Order VIII CPC) should be quashed and set aside.

¶14

Court's answer

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, the Court proceeded on the basis that the amendment prescribing the period for filing the written statement under Order VIII CPC is directory and not mandatory, so the delay in filing could be justified.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Despite the delay in filing the written statement, the defendant's valuable right would be taken away if no written statement were permitted; accordingly the Court was inclined to allow the writ petition.

¶20

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B), subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent–original plaintiff in the learned Trial Court within six (06) weeks.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) [Kishore C. Sant, J.] — Writ Petition No. 1245 of 2025, decided 24th April, 2025. The learned Trial Judge had rejected the defendant's application for acceptance of her written statement on record, the respondent contending it was filed beyond the 90-day mandate of Order VIII CPC. Relying on Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (MANU/SC/0912/2002), where the Supreme Court held the amendment to be directory and not mandatory, the Court held that the defendant's valuable right would be taken away if no written statement were permitted. Writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (B), i.e., impugned order to be quashed and set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- costs to the respondent–original plaintiff within six (06) weeks. Writ petition thereafter disposed of.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:12275

¶2

1 920-wp 1245-2025.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1245 OF 2025

¶5

Nirmala Satish Kothari .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mangal Anandrao Avhad .. Respondent

¶8

Mr. Adinath B. Jagtap, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajinkya Kale, Advocate i/by Talekar & Associates for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.

¶10

DATED : 24^th APRIL, 2025.

¶11

P. C. :-

¶12

. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate

¶13

for the respondent.

¶14

By way of impugned order the learned Trial Judge has rejected the application that was filed by the petitioner – defendant for accepting her written statement on record. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the valuable right of the defendant is taken away. He prays that, the application be allowed by allowing the writ petition and impugned order be quashed and set aside.

¶15

The learned advocate for the respondent – plaintiff vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that, the petitioner has failed to file

¶16

1 of 2

¶17

2 920-wp 1245-2025.odt

¶18

written statement within 90 days as per the mandate of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. He supports the order.

¶19

This Court finds that, though there is delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the written statement, the same is tried to be justified in any case. It is already held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union Of India reported in MANU/SC/0912/2002 that the amendment is directory and not mandatory.

¶20

Considering that, the defendants valuable right would be taken away if no written statement is permitted. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition.

¶21

The writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). However, in the facts of the case, this order is subject to petitioner paying cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only) to be paid to the respondent – original plaintiff in the learned Trial Court within six (06) weeks from today.

¶22

With this, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )

¶24

P.S.B.

¶25

2 of 2

Nirmala Satish Kothari v. Mangal Anandrao Avhad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Satish Kothari v. Mangal Anandrao Avhad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Laxman Hanumant Gunjal Vs Ramchandra Bhaskar Kulkarni Alias Subhas Narayan Jawale and Others

Balasaheb Tukaram Jogade Vs the Chief Officer Municipal Council Majalgaon

Tulshiram Jalba Bhure Vs Vithal Jalba Bhure and Others

Priyanka Kishor Aavale Vs Kishor Bhausaheb Aavale

Pratibha Gokul Zadkhande Vs Gokul Kamlakar Zarkhande

Bandu Tatya Kute and Others Vs Baynabai Kandu Kute through Lrs Dhanaji Kandu Kute and Others