Yogeshwar Govindrao Hundiwale vs Ramhari Mahadeorao Tale (Dead) ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 697 Bom

                                                               1                             6-wp-341-23.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 341/2023

                         Yogeshwar Govindrao Hundiwale
                                       Vs.
                    Ramhari Mahadeorao Tale (Dead) and another

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                          Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders

                                  Mr. U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner



                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 19th JANUARY, 2023

Heard Mr. U.J. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petition challenges the order dated 15/06/2022, whereby the ex-parte judgment and decree passed in Spl. Civil Suit No.88/2017 on 26/02/2018 is set aside and the suit is restored to file for permitting the respondents to file his written statement and trial of the matter on merits. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons accepted by the learned Court below for setting aside the ex-parte decree and restoring the suit to file, are not satisfying the requirement of sufficient cause and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Court below in paragraph No.14 2 6-wp-341-23.odt

had categorically recorded that the applicant / respondent at the relevant time was suffering from various severe ailments for which he was taking treatment, his father was also hospitalized and so also, the applicant himself was hospitalized in various hospitals since 24/08/2017 to 11/09/2017, as a result of which the ex-parte order was passed on 12/09/2017. This would clearly indicate that there was sufficient cause available for the respondents, as indicated above. It is trite that matters need to be decided on merits instead of default and any prejudice, which may be caused to the petitioner can always be compensated in terms of money, which has been already done by imposing costs of Rs.2000/- upon the respondent for setting aside the ex-parte decree. In the above view of the matter, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE

MP Deshpande

Digitally signed by:MILIND P DESHPANDE Signing Date:20.01.2023 14:24