Advocates:
['KULKARNI VAIBHAV B AND KULKARNI GIRISH B', 'BHARASWADKAR M B', '', 'CHAUDHARI NITIN K', 'R NO SERVED']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.8420 OF 2018

(Sudam s/o Laxman Pradhan Vs. Dnyaneshwar s/o Vitthal Bhosle

and others)

Mr.V.B.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.N.K.Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr.M.B.Bharaswadkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

DATE : 04/09/2018

PER COURT :

1.

The petitioner / original respondent No.1 is aggrieved by the

order dated 13/06/2018 by which the Trial Court has rejected

application Exh.18 filed by this petitioner, in Election Petition

No.3/2017.

2.

I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides.

3.

This petitioner suffered “No Say” order in the election petition.

Application Exh.18 was filed beyond the limitation period seeking

recalling of the “No Say” order. A cryptic order has been passed

which is bereft of reasons. The only reason assigned is that the

applicant failed to show sufficient reasons for delay.

khs/SEPT.2018/8420-d

2

4.

It is well settled that in matters wherein a “No W.S.” or “No

Say” order is passed which would render the said litigant defenceless,

a pragmatic approach has to be adopt