The court emphasized that procedural delays and negligence in filing written statements cannot justify the reversal of trial court orders, affirming the necessity of adhering to procedural rules.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to multiple orders passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhule in Special Civil Suit No.108/2021, which are described in tabular from for brevity as under:

3. The respondent nos.1 to 4 (original plaintiffs) filed Special Civil Suit No.108/2021 against petitioner and respondent nos.5 to 7 claiming relief of possession of suit property. On 20.09.2021, suit summon was served upon petitioner. On 10.02.2022, petitioner/defendant no.1 caused appearance in suit and matter was posted for his written statement on 11.03.2022. However, on 19.04.2022 due to failure of petitioner to file written statement, no written statement order came to be passed. The Trial Court framed issues. At this stage plaintiffs submitted application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of sale deeds dated 30.10.1980 and 17.11.1993, which was allowed on 06.01.2023. The petitioner assailed said order in Writ Petition No.4160/2023 before this Court. However, Writ Petition has been withdrawn. On 25.09.2023, plaintiff no.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of examination- in-chief at Exhibit-30. The petitioner failed to cross-examine plaintiffs. Hence, vide order dated 10.04.2024, Trial Court passed no-cross order. On 24.06.2024, plaintiffs filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of their second witness. The matter was posted for cross-examination of PW-2 on 24.07.2024. However, petitioner failed to cross-examine him. Hence, Trial Court passed no-cross order. On same day, plaintiffs closed their evidence by filing pursis below Exhibit-52. On 23.08.2024, petitioner filed application below Exhibit-54 seeking time to file his evidence affidavit. However, same came to be rejected and evidence of petitioner is closed. On 06.09.2024, matter was posted for final argument, but adjourned time to time. Thereafter, respondents/plaintiffs concluded their arguments and on 17.12.2024, matter was posted for argument of defendants.

4. At this stage, petitioner/defendant no.1 moved application below Exhibit-59 to set aside no-cross order dated 10.04.2024 and permit him to cross-examine plaintiffs’ witness. The Trial Court rejected application Exhibit-59 and posted matter for judgment. On 19.12.2024, petitioner moved another application below Exhibit-61 and prayed for setting aside no written statement order dated 19.04.2022 and accept his written statement alongwith counter claim. On 18.02.2025, Trial Court rejected petitioner’s application Exhibit-61 and posted matter for judgment. At this stage present Writ Petition is filed challenging impugned orders.

5. Mr. Nagargoje, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would submit that matter pertains to civil rights of parties as regards to immovable property. In such cases, decision on merit is solicited. Unless petitioner puts up his defence by way of written statement and cross-examine plaintiffs’ witness, just decision would not be possible. Mr. Nagargoje submits that although some lapses can be imputed against petitioner, Trial Court could have granted opportunity to file