Sitaram Sopan Pawr And Another vs Shaikh Daud Shaikh Yakhub And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 90 Bom

                                                     Writ Petition No.12189/2016
                                          1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                    WRIT PETITION NO.12189 OF 2016



 1)       Sitaram s/o Sopan Pawar,
          Age 68 years, Occu. Agriculture &
          Legal Practice, R/o Village Deola,
          Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.

 2)       Vijaymala w/o Sitaram Pawar,
          Age 60 years, Occu. Agriculture
          R/o Village Deola,
          Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.            ...      PETITIONERS


          VERSUS


 1)       Shaikh Daud s/o Shaikh Yakhub
          Age 75 years, Occu. Agriculture
          R/o Village Deola,
          Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.

 2)       Shaikh Ibrahim s/o Shaikh Daud,
          Age 85 years, Occu. Agriculture
          R/o Village Deola,
          Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.

 3)       Shaikh Ismail s/o Shaikh Daud,
          Age 40 years, Occu. Agriculture
          R/o Village Deola,
          Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.            ...      RESPONDENTS

                                .....
 Shri R.D. Raut, Advocate for petitioners
 Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents
                                .....


                                 CORAM:       S. B. SHUKRE, J.

                                 DATED:       27th February, 2017.



                                                       Writ Petition No.12189/2016



 ORAL JUDGMENT :


 1.               Rule.        Rule made returnable forthwith and heard

finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. It is seen from the impugned order that it is not in

dispute that the petitioner No.1 has lost his hearing faculty in a

car accident. It is also seen that, the original plaintiff opposed

the application mainly on the ground that delay on day-to-day

basis was not explained. In fact, in such cases, what is required

is disclosure of sufficient cause, which can be ascertained from

the contentions of both sides viewed in a broader perspective and

it is not necessary that minute details contributing to delay

should be explained to the Court.

3. Considering the situation in which the petitioners are

finding themselves in, and also their respective ages, I am of the

view that some explanation has indeed been given by them,

which resulted in occurrence of delay ranging from 9 months to 2

months in filing the written statement. So, this is a case wherein

there is some explanation given for the delay and something

wanting on the part of petitioners, which has caused

inconvenience to the original plaintiff, but the inconvenience can

always be taken care of by imposing costs, lest, justice would

suffer.

Writ Petition No.12189/2016

4. In this view of the matter, I find that the impugned

order is not consistent with the settled principles of law and it

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned

order dated 13/9/2016 is hereby quashed and set aside. The

delay occurred in filing the written statement is condoned subject

to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to the

respondents. The amount of Rs.10,000/- has already been

deposited by the petitioners in the trial Court and, therefore, the

respondents are granted liberty to withdraw the same forthwith.

The written statement shall be positively filed on or before the

next date. The written statement, it is submitted, has already

been filed before the trial Court. It shall be taken on record and

considered on merits.

6. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE

fmp/