Cane Agro Energy India Ltd Through ... vs M/S Crystal Engineers Through And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 7252 Bom

                                                              WP No. 5957/16
                                          1




                                                                          
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                  APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 5957 OF 2016

              Cane Agro Energy India Ltd.
              Raygaon Post Hingangaon (Bk.)
              Tq. Kadegaon, Dist. Sangli




                                                 
              Through its Authorized Signtory
              Shri. Santosh Dhondiram Suryawanshi
              Age: 40 years, Occu: Service,
              R/o. As above                              ....Petitioner




                                       
                                                       (Orig.Defts. No.1)

                      Versus 
     1]       M/s. Crystal Engineers,
              Registered Partnership Firm
                            
              Through and for Partners

              Shri. Satish S/o Pandharinath Bhagat
              Age: 52 yrs, Occu: Business,
      

              Sow. Shubhada Ravindra Bhagat
              Age: 43 years, Occu: Business,
   



              Both R/o. Plot No. A-106,
              M.I.D.C. Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur
              Dist. Ahmednagar.





              Through their G.P.A. Holder
              Shri. Pravin Vilasrao Ghogare
              Age: 41 years, Occu: Service,
              R/o. Suryanagar, Ward No. 7,
              Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar          ...Orig. Plaintiffs





     2]       Shri. Pruthviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh
              Age: Major, Occu: Business & Agriculture,

     3]       Shri. Dattatraya Dadu Suryawanshi
              Age: Major, Occu: Business & Agriculture

     4]       Shri. Shankarrao Anant Patil
              Age: Major, Occu: Business & Agriculture




    ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2016 00:33:57 :::
                                                              WP No. 5957/16
                                        2




                                                                         
     5]       Shri. Bhanudas Daji Shinde
              Age: Major, Occu: Business & Agriculture




                                                
     6]       Shri. Ramchandra Dadasaheb Gharge
              Age: Major, Occu: Business & Agriculture

     7]       Shri. Laxman Jaysing Kanse
              Age: Major, Occ. Business & Agriculture




                                               
              Respondents No. 2 to 7 are
              R/o. Raygaon, Post Hngangaon (Bk.)
              Tq. Kadegaon, Dist. Sangli.




                                      
              [Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 are
              deleted as per leave granted
                             
              by Hon'ble Court Dt.13-6-2016].             ...Respondents
                            
     Mr. D.G. Nagode, Advocate for Petitioners.
     Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

                                      CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

DATED : 15th November, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,

heard both the sides for final disposal.

2) Present proceeding is filed to challenge the order

made on delay condonation application which was filed for

condonation of delay caused in filing written statement. When

written statement was to be filed within 60 days from

12.12.2015 but even no application was filed on 11.2.2015, on

date fixed for filing written statement. On 10.3.2016 also there

was no application filed for seeking further time. Submission was

WP No. 5957/16

made that on that day, the Presiding Officer was on leave. But,

this circumstance cannot be considered as the charge of the

Court is always kept with other Presiding Officer. It appears that

application came to be filed on 23.3.2016 and it was contended

that there was delay of 12 days caused in filing written

statement. The Trial Court has rejected the application by

observing that no due diligence was shown and it was not

possible to use discretion given to the Court.

3) The suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs. 88.62

lakh. It is in respect of work executed. In view of nature of suit,

this Court holds that opportunity needs to be given to defendant

to take decision on merits. However, the possibility that present

petitioner is trying to protract the decision also cannot be ruled

out. The respondent, plaintiff is required to spend on the present

proceeding and he is required to come from Shrirampur, District

Ahmednagar. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds

that condition can be put on present petitioner to pay Rs.

25,000/- as costs to the respondent, plaintiff. The amount is to

be deposited in the Trial Court on or before 4.1.2017. If the

amount is not deposited in the Trial Court on or before the

aforesaid date, it is to be presumed that the present proceeding

is dismissed. If the amount is deposited, it is to be presumed

WP No. 5957/16

that 'No W.S. order' is set aside and delay is condoned and

permission is granted to file the written statement. Petition is

allowed accordingly.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ] ssc/