Sanjay Dyandeo Chaudhary And ... vs Sanjay Shivajirao Shankpal
2017 Latest Caselaw 9802 Bom

                                   1                              WP-4474-14

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 4474 OF 2014


1.     Sanjay Dyanoba Chaudhary

2.     Ganesh Vitthal Kinge

3.     Nitin Kashinath Kedari

       All above,

       Age : Major, Occupation :Contractor         .. Petitioners /
       R/o Bhusawal-Jamner Road,                      Original
       Anandnagar, Bhusawal,                          Plaintiff
       Taluka Bhisawal, District : Jalgaon

               versus

      Sanjay Shivajirao Shankpal
      Age : 52 years, Occupation: Service,
      R/o : Chandrama Apartment,
      Ramanandnagar,
      Girna Pumping House Road,              .. Respondent /
      Jalgaon                                   Orig. Defendant
          -----
Mr. Yogesh H. Jadhav, Advocate h/f Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate
for petitioners


                                  CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 19-12-2017

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. None for respondent.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners - original plaintiffs

in special civil suit no. 210 of 2012. He vehemently submits that

there are no plausible reasons given by the 6th Joint Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Jalgaon while passing order dated 27-09-2013

2 WP-4474-14

whereunder applications of the defendant at Exhibits 21 and 23 for

setting aside order of no written statement passed on 08-03-2013

and condonation of delay have been allowed permitting him to file

written statement and as such, according to learned counsel, the

order is erroneous.

3. Further, learned counsel fairly points out that after written

statement had been allowed to be filed, issues had been framed and

the matter is pending for evidence.

4. Althugh learned counsel has vehemently submitted as

aforesaid, it appears, the trial court has taken into account that the

suit had been filed for specific performance of agreement in respect

of immovable property and that the application for recall / setting

aside of no written statement order sufficiently makes out a case for

condonation of delay in making the same and allowing to file written

statement.

5. It has been referred to that defendant had not been aware of

the order and procedure for rectification and had not been made

aware of the same and his rights to immovable property are at

stake. It has been considered by the trial court that delay appears

to have been caused under genuine circumstances and for reasons

as referred to in the application and the delay had not been

deliberate.

3 WP-4474-14

6. Having regard to that the discretion has been exercised in

favour of defendant letting him to file written statement to have the

contest on merits, in the present matter it appears it would be

proper to have the matter contested and decided on merits which in

longer run would be in the interest of the plaintiffs. It may have to

be noted that there had been no interim relief operating in the

matter since 2014.

7. In the circumstances, writ petition is not entertained and is

dismissed.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH JUDGE

pnd/