Bombay High Court Steps In to Give Elderly Brothers Their Day in Court

In a pragmatic ruling that prioritizes substance over strict procedural timelines, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has allowed a step-brother to file his written statement nearly a decade after it was initially rejected for a 58-day delay. The decision breathes fresh life into a long-pending 2016 partition suit and underscores the court’s willingness to look beyond technicalities when family property disputes involve litigants in their twilight years.

Two Brothers, One Ancestral Fight, and a Decade of Legal Limbo

The legal battle pits Narayan Dattarao Sontakke against his step-brother Nagnath Dattarao Sontakke. Both men, now approaching their eighties, have been locked in a contest over family property that began in Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 2016 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gangakhed.

When the summons were served in early 2016, Narayan appeared promptly but missed the deadline for his written statement by 58 days. The trial court refused to condone the delay, and the matter drifted for eight long years until the High Court took up the writ petition in 2024. With evidence already part-heard and the parties visibly aging, justice risked becoming a casualty of rigid adherence to the clock.

Petitioner’s Plea for a Fair Chance Meets Stiff Resistance

Representing the petitioner, Mr. J.M. Murkute urged the High Court to show compassion. He highlighted that the dispute concerns only two parties whose relationship is undisputed and stressed Narayan’s readiness to compensate his brother, forgo any further adjournments, and confine his defence strictly to the issues already framed.

In contrast, Mr. S.N. Lavekar, appearing for the respondent, fiercely opposed the plea. He argued that no sufficient cause had been shown and cited the precedent of Sudhirkumar Krishnalal Sahani Vs. Nagar Parishad to warn against turning procedural safeguards into mere formalities that could be breached at will.

Why the High Court Chose Pragmatism Over Procedural Rigour

Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar carefully navigated the tension between the legislative intent behind Order 8 Rule 1 of the CPC and the unique facts before him. While acknowledging the caution sounded in Sudhirkumar , the court distinguished the present case on several practical grounds.

The suit is for partition, where every party stands in the position of a plaintiff. Without the defendant’s pleadings, the court noted, any decree would likely unravel during execution, spawning fresh rounds of litigation. Given that both brothers are nearing eighty and the suit has already languished for ten years, the interests of justice demanded an opportunity to place the true facts on record.

Key Observations from the Bench

Justice Kadethankar’s order is peppered with pointed reflections on justice delivery:

> “It is well settled that in a suit for partition, every party is in the position of a plaintiff… In the execution of the decrees in partition suits unless the rights of the parties are crystallised on the basis of their pleadings in the trial, in my view the execution of decree and the object of the suit may not reach to its logical end.”

He further observed:

> “Conclusion of the present Partition Trial in the absence of pleadings by defendant would merely keep the parties engaged in prolonged litigation on the ground that the defendant was denied an opportunity of being heard.”

On the exercise of discretion, the court held:

> “I am of the considered and pragmatic view that in the light of the facts of the case… the defendant needs to be given an opportunity to place his written statement on record.”

Final Directions: Opportunity with Accountability

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the 2016 order rejecting the written statement and directed that the trial be concluded within ten months. While granting relief, Justice Kadethankar imposed costs of ₹15,000 on the petitioner, payable within four weeks, and recorded stringent undertakings that the defence would remain confined to the existing issues and examination-in-chief already prepared.

The ruling signals that procedural lapses, though not to be encouraged, will not be permitted to frustrate the very object of a partition suit when the alternative is endless technical litigation between senior citizens. In family property disputes, it seems, the High Court prefers that both sides be heard so that the decree can finally rest on solid ground.