Saptgiri Co.Op. Hsg. Society Ltd vs The Provident Investment Co. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1147 Bom

                                                                   4.94049.20 crast.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION (ST) NO. 94049 OF 2020


      Saptgiri Co.Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd.                               ....Applicant

              V/s.

      The Provident Investment Co.                                .....Respondents
      Ltd. & Ors

      Mr. D. S. Hatle a/w Mr. Deepak Jamsandekar a/w Ms. Amruta Patil
      i/b Pritesh Burad Associates for the Applicant
      None for Respondents


                               CORAM :   NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                               DATE:     JANUARY 18, 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      This petition is by Defendant to the suit for declaration,

      injunction and possession.




      2]      Petitioner was proceeded against without W.S. vide order dated

      12/12/2018.









                                                          4.94049.20 crast.doc

3]     Vide Application Exh. 25 & 29, a prayer is made before the

Court for condonation of delay of 2 years 4 months and 24 days in

moving for setting aside 'No W.S'. order and accepting written

statement. Those Applications came to be rejected vide order dated

10/02/2020.

4] Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though served,

none appeared for Respondent-Plaintiffs and as such Plaintiffs are

not seriously contesting the claim of the Petitioner-Defendant. A

further submission is, delay caused of 2 years and 4 months is

unintentional and there are bonafde reasons for not fling written

statement. According to learned counsel, property in relation to

which Suit is initiated, there exist three other societies and all the

four societies including petitioner formed a condominium. Petitioner-

Society was in consultation with other societies so that there could

be a common stand set up in defence in the suit and that is why

there is delay of 2 years and 4 months.

5] Relying on the Judgment in the matter of Desh Raj Vs.

4.94049.20 crast.doc

Balkrishan (D) through Proposed L.R. reported in [2020(1) ALT 294],

the submissions are, Court is required to take lenient view while

accepting the written statement.

6]     Considered submissions canvassed.




7]     As far as the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner in the matter of Desh Raj [Cited supra] is concerned, the

Hon'ble Apex Court in para 22 has taken a lenient view thereby

accepting written statement in the said matter in the unique

circumstances of the said case which are not at all similar with the

circumstances which are canvassed in the case in hand.

8] Trial in the Suit has already commenced as the Plaintiff has

submitted his examination-in-chief. Even if Application for

impleadment of another Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 is pending, that hardly gives any leverage to the

Plaintiff for not fling the written statement within time as is provided

4.94049.20 crast.doc

under C.P.C.

9] The reasons cited in support to condonation of delay appears to

be without any foundation or base so as to connect the same to the

cause of delay in fling the written statement. Primarily it appears

that delay caused is intentional. That being so, no case for

interference is made out in the order impugned.

10] Petition as such fails, stands dismissed.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]