Bombay High Court
Sunil Madhukar Chaudhari And ... vs Raman Dhudku Bansi And Others on 21 June, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} wp11215-15
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11215 OF 2015
1. Sunil Madhukar Chaudhari PETITIONERS
Age - 43 years, Occ - Business,
R/o Chintaman Morya Nagar,
Dharangaon, Taluka - Dharangaon
District - Jalgaon
2. Mangala Ambadas Sonar,
Age - 46 years, Occ - Agriculture / Service
R/o Khatri Galli, Dharangaon,
Taluka - Dharangaon,
District - Jalgaon
VERSUS
1. Raman Dhudku Bansi RESPONDENTS
Age - 49 years, Occ - Agriculture
2. Bhimrao Dhudku Bansi
Age - 44 years, Occ - Agriculture
3. Sanjay Dhudku Bansi
Age - 39 years, Occ - Agriculture
4. Indubai Dhudku Bansi,
Age - 74 years, Occ - Agriculture/Household
All R.o Sant Rohidas Wada,
Dharangaon, Taluka - Dharangaon,
District - Jalgaon
.......
Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Girish V. Wani, Advocate for respondents
.......
{2} wp11215-15
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 21st JUNE, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of learned advocates for the parties.
2. The petitioners, who are original plaintiffs in Special Civil
Suit No.144 of 2011 filed for specific performance of contract,
possession and injunction, are before this court purportedly
aggrieved by order dated 17th January, 2015 upon an application
Exhibit-60 whereunder their request to set aside orders dated
24th June, 2014 and 5th July, 2014 about closure of their evidence
had been refused.
3. Mr. Patil, learned advocate for the petitioners points out
various dates and circumstances involved and contends that
none of the party is going to gain anything from the impugned
order. As a matter of fact, there is every likelihood that at some
other stage in the litigation, the matter may be remitted for this
very purpose having regard to procedural provisions. He,
therefore, submits that a lenient view be taken, which may be
expedient and would augment cause of justice. This court,
according to him, has already indicated that the inconvenience
{3} wp11215-15
caused to the other side would be taken care of by imposition of
costs, since Rs.5000/- were directed to be deposited.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Wani, learned advocate for the
respondents submits that although the petitioners are plaintiffs,
they have been conducting the proceedings of the suit pretty
casually, which can be borne out from the dates in the suit
before the trial court and that even the applications to have set
aside the closure of evidence orders have not been attended to.
He, therefore, submits that there is no due diligence being
shown in prosecuting the matter and requests to dismiss the writ
petition.
5. Be that as it may, having regard to that it is petitioners'
own suit, which is getting entangled in the process, may be a
situation, not conducive even to the interest of the respondents,
the same can be salvaged by imposition of costs and charting a
course for further conduct of the proceedings. This would, of
course, subject to imposition of costs, over and above the
amount which has already been deposited in this court.
6. The impugned order, as such, is set aside, including the
orders dated 24th June, 2014 and 5th July, 2014. The petitioners
hereafter to diligently conduct proceedings of the suit.
{4} wp11215-15
Commencement of further evidence by the plaintiffs shall be
within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of writ of
this order and further prosecution of the matter including the
evidence by the defendants is expected to be completed within a
period of eight (8) months from the date of receipt of writ of this
order.
7. The inconvenience caused in the process to the
respondent-defendants ig will have to be compensated by
imposition of costs to be paid by the petitioners - plaintiffs to the
respondents, to be equally distributed amongst them. As such, in
addition to and over and above the amount earlier deposited the
petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5000/-, as and by way of
costs in trial court within two weeks from the date of receipt of
writ of this order. Thereupon, the suit proceedings as directed
aforesaid be proceeded with. The amount of Rs.5000/- which has
been deposited in this court by the petitioners be transferred to
the trial court and as such, an aggregate amount of Rs.10,000/-
shall be costs to be distributed amongst the respondents.
Payment of costs is the condition precedent. In case of failure to
deposit costs as directed the impugned order shall be deemed to
have been revived without further reference to the trial court or
this court.
{5} wp11215-15
8. Writ petition, as such, stands allowed. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause "B".
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/wp11215-15
