Bombay High Court
The Managing Director Maha. State ... vs Pramodkumar Harishchandra ... on 14 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
wp.2656.16.jud 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2656 OF 2016
01] The Managing Director,
Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal
Development Corporation Limited,
Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Old Agra Road,
Gondwana, Nasik : 422 002
(Original Defendant No.3)
02] Regional Officer,
Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal
Development Corporation Ltd.,
Gadchiroli : 441 601
(Original Defendant No.4.) .... Petitioners
-- Versus -
01] Pramodkumar Harishchandra Agrawal,
Aged about major,
Prop. Rani Sati Rice Mill,
Manohar Chowk,
Opposite Traffic Police Hq.
Gadchiroli : 441 601 (Original Plaintiff)
02] State of Maharashtra,
through the Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies
and Consumer Affairs,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400 032
(Original Defendant No.1)
03] Financial Advisor & Deputy Secretary,
Ministry of Food, Civil Supplies &
Consumer Affairs,
Government of Maharashtra,
42, Sir Vithaldas Thakersy Marg,
Mumbai - 400 032.
(Original Defendant No.2). .... Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2017 23:37:37 :::
wp.2656.16.jud 2
Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri P.H. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Shri B.M. Lonare, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATE : JULY 14, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
02] Challenge in the petition is to the order dated
06/01/2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli
in R.C.S. No.11/2015 below Exh.27 thereby rejecting an
application filed by petitioner/defendant no.4 for grant of
permission to file written statement.
03] Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Counsel for
petitioners and Shri P.H. Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondent
no.1. It is not in dispute that respondent no.1 filed suit for
recovery of money against defendant nos.1 to 4 towards arrears
of transportation charges. Respondent no.1 had preferred Writ
Petition No.277/2014 alleging that there was short payment of
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2017 23:37:37 :::
wp.2656.16.jud 3
transportation charges for the year 2000-01 and 2005-06. As
petition was filed beyond the period of three years and it was
barred by limitation, Writ Petition No.277/2014 came to be
rejected by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
08/07/2014.
04] Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that
petitioner/defendant no.4 is Tribal Development Corporation and
Counsel appointed by defendant no.4 did not seek instructions
and did not file written statement. It is submitted that another
counsel was appointed and application for permission to file
written statement was then moved.
05] Learned Counsel for petitioners placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sambhaji & Ors. vs.
Gangabai & Ors. - [2009(1)ALL MR 921(S.C.)] and
submitted that delay can be condoned in rare and exceptional
circumstances. The submission is that in view of rejection of
application filed by petitioner and since public money is
involved, refusal of permission to defend the case would cause
serious injustice to defendant no.4.
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2017 23:37:37 :::
wp.2656.16.jud 4
06] With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the
parties, this Court has gone through the judgments referred by
the trial Court in the impugned order and also the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned Counsel for
petitioners. In the case of Sambhaji & Ors. vs. Gangabai &
Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 17 as
under :
"Next, there must be ever present to the mind
the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a
principle of natural justice which requires that men
should not be condemned unheard, that decisions
should not be reached behind their backs, that
proceedings that affect their lives and property should
not continue in their absence and that they should not
be precluded from participating in them. Of course,
there must be exceptions and where they are clearly
defined they must be given effect to. But taken by
and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of
procedure should be construed, wherever that is
reasonably possible, in the light of that principle.
[See: Sk. Salim Haji Abdul Khyumsab v. Kumar -
2006(1)SCC46 and R.N. Jadi & Bros. vs.
Subhashchandra - 2007(6)SCC420].
::: Uploaded on - 20/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2017 23:37:37 :::
wp.2656.16.jud 5
15. In the instance case the trial court
proceeded on the erroneous premise that there was
no scope to accept the written statement after 90
days. The High Court by the impugned order held
that though it had power, no case was made out to
accept the prayer. We have considered the grounds
indicated by the appellants seeking acceptance of the
written statement filed belatedly. They cannot be
considered to be trivial or without substance. In the
case of this nature where close relatives are litigants a
liberal approach is called for. In the circumstances,
we set aside the impugned order of the High Court
affirming the order passed by the trial court refusing
acceptance of the written statement."
07] Considering the order passed in writ petition filed by
respondent no.1 and since sufficient cause has been
demonstrated by petitioner for not filing written statement in
time, this Court is inclined to exercise extraordinary powers in
writ jurisdiction and proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
I. Impugned order dated 06/01/2016 passed by the
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli in R.C.S.
No.11/2015 below Exh.27 is set aside.
II. Application [Exh.27] filed by petitioner/defendant
no.4 is allowed.
III. Writ Petition No.2656/2016 stands disposed of and
rule is made absolute in above terms.
IV. No costs.
*sdw (Kum. Indira Jain.J.)
