✦ Bombay High Court · 08 Mar 2010

Gyanchand Roopchand Madhani v. Babasaheb Ramchandra Shinde & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 1181 of 2010A S OKA2 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
08 Mar 2010
Bench
A S OKA

Outcome

Allowed

iii)Petition is allowed accordingly

Provisions considered

Judgment

Operative part

Mr.A.R.Pande for the petitioner Mr.Kirit Mehta for respondent nos.1 to 3 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 8, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 who are the original plaintiffs. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 The petitioner is the second defendant. The petitioner could not file the written statement within the time stipulated by Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Therefore, a Notice of Motion was taken out by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement and for taking the written statement on record. 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He invited my attention to the assertions made in the affidavit-in-support. He pointed out that sufficient reasons were set out in the affidavit in support and the delay in filing the written statement has been explained. The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3 supported the impugned order. 4 The trial Court passed order on 18th January 2008 directing that the suit will proceed without the written 2 statement of the petitioner. The Notice of Motion was taken out on 19th June 2009. In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion and in particular , in paragraphs 3 to 5 reasons have been assigned as to why there is a default on the part of the petitioner. Considering the reasons set out and considering the fact that amended Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 is held to be directory, the trial Court ought to have exercised discretion by permitting the written statement to be filed. The 1st to 3rd respondents could have been compensated by ordering the petitioner to pay exemplary costs. Hence, the petition must succeed. The amount of costs is quantified at Rs.10,000/- 5 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned Judgment and Order dated 19th December 2009 is quashed and set aside. ii)Notice of Motion no.818 of 2009 is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) thereof subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent nos.1 to 3 within six weeks from today. Payment of costs will be a condition precedent. iii)Petition is allowed accordingly. JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: iii)Petition is allowed accordingly

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 08 Mar 2010. The bench was A S OKA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 1181 of 2010). ← Search more judgments