##PAGE1##

2025:BHC-AS:57173

Megha 42_wp_5402_2019.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.5402 OF 2019

Jaywant Shikshan Prasarak Mandal ...Petitioner

V/s.

Namdev Bajirao Sonawane and Anr. ...Respondents

______________

Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude for the Petitioner.

Mr. Himanshu Kode for Respondent No.1.

______________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED: 23 DECEMBER 2025.

P.C.:

1) Petition challenges order dated 7 March 2019 passed by

the 9^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, rejecting the

Application of the Petitioner /Defendant No.11 for setting aside ex-

parte order under provisions of Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (the Code).

2) I have heard Mr. Bhargude, the learned counsel appearing

for the Petitioner and Mr. Kode, the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent No.1/Plaintiff. I have gone through the findings recorded

by the Trial Court in the impugned order. I have also perused the

records of the case.

Page No. 1 of 3

23 December 2025

Megha 42_wp_5402_2019.docx

3) The Suit for specific performance is instituted by the

Plaintiff on 23 October 2007. There is acknowledgment card on record

at Exhibit-84, which shows that someone on behalf of the Petitioner

accepted the envelope containing summons on 6 November 2010.

Petitioner claims that though the acknowledgment shows receipt of

envelope, actually Petitioner-Institute was not aware of filing of the

Suit. It is contended that it has 1500 employees and therefore there is

possibility of one of the employees accepting the suit summons. In my

view, this justification has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court. Even

if the employee of the Petitioner has accepted the suit summons, it

would constitute good service on Petitioner/Defendant No11.

4) It is contended by the Petitioner that it acquired

knowledge about filing of the Suit on 13 February 2019 when some

other court proceedings were being attended by the representative of

the Petitioner. This is how the application for setting aside ex-parte

order dated 18 January 2011 was filed. The application was opposed by

the Plaintiff contending that the same was filed for delaying decision of

the Suit. However, it is seen that the present Petition is pending in this

Court since the year 2019. By order dated 25 April 2019 proceedings of

the Suit have been stayed. Thus, pendency of the present Petition has

resulted in non-decision of the Suit for the last six long years. It is only

on account of this factor this Court is inclined to grant an opportunity

to Petitioner -Defendant No.11 to file written statement by setting aside

the ex-parte order. However, since the conduct of the Petitioner is

found negligent, it would be necessary to impose exemplary costs on

the Petitioner, whose conduct has resulted in non-decision of the Suit

Page No. 2 of 3

23 December 2025

Megha 42_wp_5402_2019.docx

for the last 18 long years. Considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, the cost is computed at Rs.1,00,000/-.

5) Consequently, the Petition succeeds. Order dated 7 March

2019 on application at Exhibit-197 is set aside. Order dated 18 January

2011 directing Suit to proceed ex-parte is also set aside. The

Petitioner/Defendant No.11 shall tender the written statement before

the Trial Court within a period of four weeks. Petitioner/Defendant

No.11 shall pay to the original Plaintiff costs of Rs.1,00,000/-. The

amount of costs shall be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of

four weeks. Deposit of costs shall be condition precedent for taking the

written statement on record.

6) With the above directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed

with costs as directed.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Signed by: Megha S. Parab

Page No. 3 of 3

Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 23 December 2025

Date: 24/12/2025 11:26:38