Dismissed¶18

Revnath Eknath Shinde v. Pannalal Bansilal Bedmutha

Bombay HC27 Apr 2026WP/4609/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; refusal to set aside 'No Written Statement' order upheld after ten-year delay; defendant attended proceedings throughout but applied only after plaintiff's evidence closed; R.C.S. No.99 of 2015, Civil Judge J.D., Jamkhed, District Ahilyanagar; impugned order 16.03.2026 below Exhibit-42 and 44; amendment of plaint 07.08.2018; evidence closing purshis 22.07.2024; application dated 15.12.2025; bench: S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

What did the court decide?

The High Court found no fault in the Trial Court's view refusing the petitioner's belated (ten-year-delayed) application for setting aside the 'No Written Statement' order. ¶18

Revnath Eknath Shinde vs Pannalal Bansilal Bedmutha — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

wp 4609.2026.odt

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:19419

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

69 WRIT PETITION NO. 4609 OF 2026

¶6

Revnath Eknath Shinde VERSUS

¶7

Pannalal Bansilal Bedmutha

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Syed G R

¶9

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : April 27, 2026

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 16.3.2026 passed below Exhibit-42 and 44 in Regular Civil Suit No.99 of 2015 by learned Civil Judge J.D., Jamkhed, District Ahilyanagar.

¶12

Petitioner is defendant in R.C.S. No.99 of 2015. The suit is instituted on 23.7.2015. Although, petitioner appeared in the suit, he failed to file the Written Statement. Ultimately, on 8.12.2015 ‘No Written Statement’ order is passed.

¶13

Thereafter petitioner continued to appear before the

¶14

Court and kept day-to-day watch on the proceeding of suit. On 7.8.2018 respondent/plaintiff sought amendment in plaint. It was allowed. Thereafter, plaintiff filed evidence affidavit, however, defendant failed to cross-examine him. Hence, no-

¶15

wp 4609.2026.odt

¶16

¶17

cross order was passed. Respondent/Plaintiff proceeded in suit, recorded his evidence and his witnesses. On 22.7.2024 he filed evidence closing purshis.

¶18

At this stage, on 15.12.2025 petitioner filed an application for setting aside ‘No Written Statement’ order. Trial Court observed that although petitioner was aware about ‘No Written Statement’ order for last ten years and he was attending proceeding of the suits on given dates, application for setting aside ‘No Written Statement’ order is filed after Ten years after evidence of plaintiff is over. In this background, Trial Court refused to entertain petitioner’s application for setting aside ‘No Written Statement’ order and acceptance of the same. This Court finds no fault in the view taken by the Trial Court. In light of the observations made herein-above, Writ Petition sans merit, hence dismissed .

¶19

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ...

¶20

AAA/-f

Revnath Eknath Shinde v. Pannalal Bansilal Bedmutha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revnath Eknath Shinde v. Pannalal Bansilal Bedmutha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Zumbar Darphe vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Ajaz Kalindar Pathan vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shaikh Iliyas Hasham and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Babanrao Rajaram Pund and Another vs Sandesh Bhivsan Wagh and Others

Saguna Vinod Medhe vs Shaikh Majahar Shaikh Akhtar and Anr.

M.S. Karan Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs Employees Provident Fund Organization Thr the Asst. Provident Fund Com. Aurangabad