Bombay High Court
Bharat Vishnu Rade vs Gopal Khushal Kolhe on 28 November, 2011
Bench: S. S. Shinde
1 wp1171.11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1171 OF 2011
Bharat Vishnu Rade,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Agril.,
R/o. Ring Road, Jalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Gopal Khushal Kolhe,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o. Asoda, Taluka and
District Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENT
...
Mr. G.S. Rane, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. D.K. Thote, Advocate holding for
Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent sole.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.
DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011
ORAL JUDGMENT :
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
With the consent of learned Counsel for the
parties, heard finally.
2. The point which is agitated in this writ
2 wp1171.11
petition is that, in a suit filed by the
petitioner herein, sole defendant was allowed to
file written statement after two years from
issuance of the summons by the trial Court. It is
the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner
that, impugned order suffers from non assigning of
the reasons. No reasons are assigned by the Judge
while setting aside "No W.S. order."
2.
The Counsel for the respondent would
submit that, since the written statement is
already taken on record and the costs amount is
also deposited, this Court may not interfere in
the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
3. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the
petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondent,
I am of the considered view that, the order
impugned in this writ petition has not mentioned
any reason why "No W.S. order" is required to be
set aside. The impugned order reads as " Heard.
No W.S. Order is set aside on costs of Rs.100/-."
3 wp1171.11
Therefore, by single sentence, "No W.S. Order" is
set aside by the trial Court.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s. Aditya Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. Bombay Swadeshi
Stores Ltd. and others, reported in A.I.R. 2007
S.C. 1574, while considering the provisions of
Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
taken a view that in case of extension of time for
filing written statement, the Court should record
reasons for such extension of time. The Supreme
Court has observed in para-7 of the said judgment
relying upon the earlier judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Kailas vs. Nanhku and others
reported in 2005 (4) S.C.C. 480 at least brief
reasons are required to be recorded while
extending time for filing written statement.
5. Admittedly, in the present case, the
impugned order suffers from non assigning reasons
while setting aside "No W.S. order." In that
view of the matter, impugned order is set aside.
4 wp1171.11
The application of the respondent at Exhibit-30 is
restored to its original file. The trial Court
after hearing both the sides to decide the said
application on merits, however, record the reasons
in support of the order which will be passed on
the said application.
6. Since the matter is pending for
considerable period, the trial Court will decide
the said application within one month from date of
the receipt of this order. Writ Petition is
allowed to the above extent and stands disposed
of. Rule made absolute as indicated above.
sd/-
[S.S. SHINDE, J.]
sut/NOV11
