High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 902-903-904.WP-11680-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD902 WRIT PETITION NO. 11680 OF 2024Ashok Gangaram ChilmeAge : 65 Years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o : Budhoda, Taluka Ausa,District Latur.PetitionerVERSUS1.Harishchandra Gangaram ChilmeAge : 70 Years, Occ.: Agriculture,R/o.: Budhoda, Taluka Ausa,District Latur.2.Angad Gangaram Chilme,Age : 85 years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o.: As above.3.Competent Authority National Highway,@ Sub Divisional Officer,Land Acquisition Officer,Ausa-Renapur, Old Collector Office,Latur.4.Project Director,National Highway No.361,Bharadwaj, Vyankatadri Nagar,Near Ayodhyanagar, Tardoa Khurd,Nanded. Respondents ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Nahar Akash P.Addl.GP for Respondents/State : Mrs. Dr. Kalpalata Patil BharaswadkarAdvocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Mr. Dixit Sushant V.Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Gore Nikita NarayanAdvocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Nikam Anup R.…AND
Legal Reasoning
2 902-903-904.WP-11680-2024.doc 903 WRIT PETITION NO. 11681 OF 20241.Vyankuram Ashokrao ChilmeAge : 40 Years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o : Budhoda, Taluka Ausa,District Latur.2.Jyoti Gunwant Algule,Age : 47 years, Occu.: Household,R/o : Budhoda, Taluka Ausa,District Latur.3.Smt. Archana Govind Chame,Age : 45 years, Occu.: Household,R/o. : Gaur, Taluka Nilanga,District Latur.PetitionersVERSUS1.Harishchandra Gangaram ChilmeAge : 70 Years, Occ.: Agriculture,R/o.: Budhoda, Taluka Ausa,District Latur.2.Angad Gangaram Chilme,Age : 85 years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o.: As above.3.Ashok Gangaram ChilmeAge : 65 Years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o.: As above.4.Kamalbai Ashok Chilme,Age : 60 Years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o.: As above.5.Competent Authority,Sub Divisional Officer,Land Acquisition Officer,Ausa-Renapur, Old Collector Office,Latur. 3 902-903-904.WP-11680-2024.doc 6.Project Director,National Highway No.361,Bharadwaj, Vyankatadri Nagar,Near Ayodhyanagar, Tardoa Khurd,Nanded. Respondents ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Bhandari Pranjal A.AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. B. B. BhiseAdvocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 : Mr. Dixit Sushant V.Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Gore Nikita NarayanAdvocate for Respondent No.6: Mr. Nikam Anup R.…904 WRIT PETITION NO. 11682 OF 2024Vyankuram Ashokrao ChilmeAge : 40 Years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o : Budhoda, Taluka Ausa,District Latur.PetitionerVERSUS1.Harishchandra Gangaram ChilmeAge : 70 Years, Occ.: Agriculture,R/o.: Budhoda, Taluka Ausa,District Latur.2.Ashok Gangaram ChilmeAge : 65 Years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o.: Budhoda, Taluka Ausa,District Latur.3.Kamalbai Ashok Chilme,Age : 60 Years, Occu.: Agriculture,R/o.: As above.4.Project Director,National Highway No.361,Bharadwaj, Vyankatadri Nagar,Near Ayodhyanagar, Tardoa Khurd,Nanded. 4 902-903-904.WP-11680-2024.doc 5.Competent Authority,Sub Divisional Officer,Land Acquisition Officer,Ausa-Renapur, Old Collector Office,Latur. Respondents ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Bhandari Pranjal A.AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. V. M. ChateAdvocate for Respondent Nos.1 : Mr. Dixit Sushant V.Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Gore Nikita NarayanAdvocate for Respondent No.4: Mr. Nikam Anup R.… CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 12th AUGUST 2025ORAL JUDGMENT :1.Rule. 2.Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally withconsent of the parties. 3.Writ Petition No.11680/2024 is filed by the Plaintiff inRegular Civil Suit No.348/2023 assailing the order dated 22.06.2024,whereby the suit is ordered to be dismissed in default under Order IXRule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code and as also subsequent orderpassed on the same date, rejecting the application for restoration ofsuit.4.Writ Petition No. 11681/2024 is filed by the OriginalPlaintiff, challenging similar order, dismissing the suit in defaultunder Order IX Rule 3 and rejecting the application for restoration of 5 902-903-904.WP-11680-2024.doc the said suit in Regular Civil Suit No.367/2023. The orders impugnedare passed on 22.06.2024. Similarly Writ Petition No.11682/2024 isfiled by original Petitioner in Land Acquisition Reference No.134/2019, whereby the reference is dismissed in default under Order IXRule 3 of the CPC and subsequent application for restoration ofreference is rejected. In this case also both the orders impugned arepassed on 22.06.2024. It appears from perusal of the orderdismissing the suit and reference in default that despite opportunity,original Plaintiff and Petitioner in the reference proceeding did notattend the Court for facing cross-examination. The learnedtrial/Reference Court has observed that although the matters weremade time bound by the Honourable Supreme Court due to suchattitude of the Plaintiff, the suits could not be decided within thestipulated time period. It is in such circumstances that the suits andreference are ordered to be dismissed for want of prosecution.5.Learned Advocates for the Petitioners submit that ordersdismissing the suits and reference were passed either at 11:30 am on22.06.2024 and on the same day within a short span of time, thePlaintiff and reference Petitioner had filed application for restorationof the suit. It is stated that the Plaintiffs are residents of VillageBudhoda and their advocate is resident of Latur. It is stated that insuch circumstances, there was some delay in reaching the Court. Thelearned Advocates for the Petitioners submit that the suits andreference may be restored imposing appropriate conditions so thatthe suits and reference are decided on merits. 6 902-903-904.WP-11680-2024.doc 6.Learned Advocate for the Respondents strongly opposes thepetitions. He contends that the conduct of the Petitioners does notdeserve any sympathetic consideration. He further states that no faultcan be found with the orders passed by the learned trial/ReferenceCourt and the petition being devoid of any substance, deserved to bedismissed.7.Although the learned trial Court has referred to the conductof the Plaintiffs and Petitioners in the reference case, it must bestated that for one or the other reason, the matter was beingadjourned and the suit is ultimately dismissed for absence on22.06.2024. It is undisputed fact on record that application forrestoration was filed on the same date. Thus, it is apparent that onthe day when the suit was dismissed, the Plaintiffs and referencePetitioner were ready to face cross-examination. The application forrestoration was also filed on the same day. In such circumstances, itwill be expedient in the interest of justice to allow the petitions tocontest the suits and reference on merits. It will also be pertinent tostate that it is not in dispute that the Defendants have received theamount of compensation.8.Having regard to the conduct of the Petitioners, some costwill have to be imposed. The Writ Petitions are allowed subject topayment of cost of Rs. 5000/- in each petition. The cost shall bepayable to Ausa Bar Association on or before 22.08.2025. 7 902-903-904.WP-11680-2024.doc 9.On the costs being paid, the suits and reference shall beregistered on their original numbers.10.The party shall appear before the learned trialCourt/Reference Court on 25.08.2025.11.Parties to note that separate notice/summons will not beissued for appearance. In the event the costs are paid and the suitsand reference are restored to file, the same be decided on their ownmerits on or before 31.03.2026.12.Learned Counsels for the Petitioners on instructions fromthe Petitioners, make a statement that the Petitioners will not seekunnecessary adjournments in the matters. The statement is acceptedas an undertaking to this Court.13.Rule is made absolute in the above terms.14.Writ Petitions are disposed of. ROHIT W. JOSHIJUDGENAJEEB..