Disposed¶21

Shyam S/O Shriram Thak and Others v. Syed Ruknuddin S/O Syed Rafioddin

Bombay HC23 Jan 2025WP/437/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 437/2024, Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench, M.S. Jawalkar J., 23/01/2025; setting aside 'no written statement' order; suit proceeded without written statement 04.01.2020 Exhibit-1; impugned order 02.09.2023 Exhibit-29; Regular Civil Suit No.29/2019, Civil Judge Junior Division Barshitakli; COVID-19 pandemic delay; belated written statement taken on record; costs Rs.10,000/- to plaintiff; orders quashed and set aside; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: orders dated 04.01.2020 (Exhibit-1) and 02.09.2023 (Exhibit-29) quashed and set aside; written statement to be accepted by the Civil Judge, Junior Division upon the petitioner paying Rs.10,000/- as costs to the plaintiff/respondent within two weeks. ¶21

Shyam S/O Shriram Thak and Others Vs Syed Ruknuddin S/O Syed Rafioddin — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.01.2020 proceeding the suit without written statement and the subsequent order dated 02.09.2023 should be quashed and set aside so as to take the belatedly filed written statement on record, considering the COVID-19 pandemic disruption.

¶17

Court's answer

In view of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, during which courts were not regularly functioning, an application to set aside the 'no written statement' order filed after about three years required consideration of the intervening situation rather than outright refusal.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Since the courts were not functioning, allowing the application and taking the written statement on record would cause no prejudice to the plaintiff; however, considering the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff, the 'no written statement' order can be set aside by imposing costs.

¶17

Key takeaways

The order dated 04.01.2020 (below Exhibit-1) and the order dated 02.09.2023 (below Exhibit-29) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division are quashed and set aside.ratio¶18
The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division is directed to accept the written statement after payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Smt. M.S. Jawalkar, J.; 23/01/2025) disposed of W.P. No.437/2024 filed by Shyam s/o Shriram Thak and others challenging the order dated 02.09.2023 (Exhibit-29) of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshitakli in Regular Civil Suit No.29/2019. The suit had been proceeded without written statement by an order dated 04.01.2020 (Exhibit-1); the petitioners applied to set aside that order only after about three years, having noticed it after courts resumed following the COVID-19 pandemic. Holding that the unprecedented pandemic and non-functioning of courts had to be weighed, that acceptance of the written statement would cause no prejudice to the plaintiff, and imposing costs for the inconvenience caused, the Court quashed and set aside both orders and directed the trial court to accept the written statement upon payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the plaintiff/respondent within two weeks.

¶1

1 15 wp 437-2024

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.437/2024

¶4

Shyam s/o Shriram Thak and others Vs.

¶5

Syed Ruknuddin s/o Syed Rafioddin

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri V.B. Bhise, Advocate for petitioners Shri Syed Sufiyan, Advocate for respondent

¶11

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. DATED : 23/01/2025

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

¶13

The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 02.09.2023 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Barshitakli, in Regular Civil Suit No.29/2019. There was order passed on 04.01.2020 by which suit was proceeded without written statement against the petitioners. The said order came to the notice of petitioners after Court started functioning after COVID-19 Pandemic was over.

¶14

The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division observed that there was around 4 months time granted to file written statement, however, no written statement was filed and after around 3 years, application for setting aside no written statement was filed.

¶15

Admittedly, there was unprecedented situation of COVID -19 Pandemic in between and Courts were not regularly functioning. It is the matter of knowledge that at the end of 2019 and in the beginning of 2020 itself, there

¶16

2 15 wp 437-2024

¶17

was fear and confusion in the minds of people due to COVID- 19 Pandemic. As such, the Court has required to consider this aspects. Even if, application is filed after three years, the situation in between needs to be considered. As the Courts were not functioning, no prejudice is going to cause to the plaintiff, if such application is allowed and written statement is taken on record. Even Hon’ble Apex Court extended limitation. However, considering the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff, the order of no written statement can be set aside by imposing costs.

¶18

As such, the order dated 04.01.2020, below Exhibit1 and order dated 02.09.2023 below Exhibit-29 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶19

The written statement is already filed along with application for setting aside ‘no written statement order’. The petitioner shall pay amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff as the costs within two weeks.

¶20

The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division is hereby directed to accept the written statement after payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent as directed above.

¶21

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

R.S. Sahare

Shyam S/O Shriram Thak and Others v. Syed Ruknuddin S/O Syed Rafioddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam S/O Shriram Thak and Others v. Syed Ruknuddin S/O Syed Rafioddin

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

Similar cases

Municipal Council Achalpur Thr. Chief Officer, Achalpur, Amravati Vs Narayan S/O Shriram Ingole

Municipal Council Achalpur, Thr. Chief Officer, Achalpur, Amravati Vs Anil Laxmanrao Pataskar

Padmakar S/O Narayan Bhonde and Another vs Durga W/O Arunrao Datir and Others

Ambadas Kisan Bhuyar and Others Vs Dnyandeo Ganpat Ingale (Dead) Thr. Smt. Vimalbai Dnyandeo Ingle and Others

Jaldevi Matsya Vyavasaya Saha. Sanstha Maryadit, Thr. President, Narayan S. Satargadge Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Special Assistance, Mumbai and Ors.

Chetan S/O. Kantibhai Patel Vs Union of India, through General Manager, South - East Central Railway, Bilaspuur and Anr.