Madhukar Yadav Patil vs Raghunath Hari Koli And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10969 Bom

                                                                        929.WP.10318.19.odt


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO.10318 OF 2019

         Madhukar Yadav Patil,
         Age : 60 years, Occu : Agri.,
         R/o : Udali (Kh), Tq. Raver
         District : Jalgaon                          ...     PETITIONER
                                                     (Org. Defendant No.1)
         VERSUS

1.       Raghunath Hari Koli
         Age : 76 years, Occ : Agri.,
         R/o. Rangaon, Tq. Raver,
         Dist. Jalgaon.                                      (Orig. Plaintiff)
2.       Vanita Ashok Deshmukh
         Age : 35 years, Occ : Agri.,                         (Org. Deft. No.2)
3.       Aniket Ashok Deshmukh                                (Org. Deft. No.3)
4.       Puja Ashok Deshmukh                                 (Org. Deft. No. 4)

         No.3 and 4 Minor, through
         Natural Guardian respondent
         No.2, R/o. Gate, Tq. Raver
         Dist. Jalgaon.

5.       Namdeo Pandurang Koli
         Age : 55 years, Occu : Agri.,                 (Org. Added Deft. No.1)
6.       Nivrutti Pandurang Koli
         Age : 48 years, Occu : Agri.,                 (Org. Added Deft. No.1)
         Both R/o. Rangaon, Tq.
         Raver, Dist. Jalgaon.                               ... RESPONDENTS
                                     ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Ms. Seema T. Pawar h/f. Mr. Talhar Ajay G.
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rathod Vinod N.
                                     ...
                             CORAM       :  MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

                                    DATE    :   12.08.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned

advocate for the respondent No.1 plaintiff waives service. With the consent

929.WP.10318.19.odt

of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner who is the defendant before the learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division in a suit is impugning the order whereby the learned

Judge rejected his application and thereby refusing him to file a written

statement.

3. As can be noticed, the suit is touching a right to an immovable

property. It is trite that the disputes should normally be decided on merits

rather than by default. Assuming that the petitioner was lax in defending

the suit, once he was ready to file the written statement, there were no

strong and sufficient reason which could have prevented the learned Judge

in allowing the request and if necessary by imposing some costs.

4. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, in my

considered view, the view taken by the learned Judge in the impugned order

is too technical and would defeat the ends of justice.

5. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed

and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner on which the

impugned order is passed stands allowed subject to his depositing a costs of

Rs.5000/- in the trial court within two weeks. The respondent No.1 shall be

entitled to claim the costs.

5. The Rule is made absolute.

(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) habeeb