Haji Razzaque Haji Musa And Others vs Mohammad Yunus Haji Gaffar
2017 Latest Caselaw 1420 Bom

                                1                                       wp1839.16




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 WRIT PETITION NO.1839 OF 2016


 1) Haji Razzaque Haji Musa,
     Aged about 65 years, Occ.- Business, 
     C/o Fine Cutpiece & Collection, 
     Main Road, Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon,
     District Buldana.

 2) Mohammad Amin Haji Gaffar, 
     Aged 61 years, Occ. - Business, 

 3) Mohammad Anis Haji Gaffar,
     Aged 55 years, Occ. - Business, 
     Nos. 2 & 3 R/o Tilak Maidan, 
     Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon, District
     Buldana. 

 4) Mohammad Idaris Haji Gaffar, 
     Aged 52 years, Occ. - Business, 
     R/o Zia Colony, Khamgaon, 
     Tq. Khamgaon, District Buldana. 

 5) Mohammad Hanif Haji Gaffar,
     Aged 53 years, Occ.- Business, 
     R/o Hanif Kirana, Jagdamba Road, 
     Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon, District 
     Buldana.                                         ....       PETITIONERS


                     VERSUS


 Mohammad Yunus Haji Gaffar,
 Aged about 47 years, 
 Occupation - Business, 
 R/o Jalalpura, Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon,



::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 22:00:13 :::
                                        2                                           wp1839.16




 District - Buldana                                              ....       RESPONDENT


 ______________________________________________________________

             Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for the petitioners, 
   Ms. Deepali Sapkal, Advocate h/f. Shri Anil S. Kilor, Advocate for the
                              respondent.
  ______________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 3 APRIL, 2017.

rd

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri R.N. Ghuge, Advocate for the petitioners and

Ms. Deepali Sapkal, Advocate holding for Shri Anil S. Kilor, Advocate

for the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The original defendants have approached this Court

against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application

(Exhibit No.12-A) filed by them praying that their written statement be

taken on record. The application is rejected on the ground that earlier

also application filed by the defendants seeking adjournment to file

written statement was rejected and that the written statement is not

filed within stipulated time. The facts recorded in the impugned

3 wp1839.16

order show that the suit summons were served on the defendants on

24-02-2014 and the written statement alongwith the application

(Exhibit No.12-A) was filed on 10-10-2014, thus there is delay in filing

the written statement, however, considering the nature of dispute

between the parties and the explanation given by the defendants, in

my view, the interests of justice would be served by passing the

following order :

                    (i)      The impugned order is set aside.  

                    (ii)     The application (Exhibit No.12-A) is allowed. 

(iii) The defendants are permitted to place on record the

written statement.

Rule made absolute in the above terms. The

petitioners/defendants shall pay costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- to the

respondent/plaintiff, within one month. If the receipt showing

payment of costs is not produced on the record of the trial Court

within one month, this order shall stand recalled and the trial Court

shall proceed with the suit without written statement of the

defendants.

JUDGE

adgokar