PRADIP UTTAMRAO PATIL AND OTHERS vs SAURABH PRAMOD MAHAJAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
PRADIP UTTAMRAO PATIL AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
SAURABH PRAMOD MAHAJAN – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar
For the Respondents: Mr. Milind M. Patil (Beedkar)

Table of Content
1. challenge to the rejection of application for delay in filing (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on opposing timelines and reasoning (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observation on procedural justification (Para 6 , 10 , 12 , 13)
4. court's reasoning on application of delay law (Para 7 , 14)
5. final ruling and dismissal of the petition (Para 15)

FINAL ORDER:-

1. By this petition, petitioners challenge the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the Joint Judge, Senior Division, Dhule rejecting application filed for setting aside ‘no written statement’ order, for condonation of delay in filing written statement and for taking on record their written statement.

2. The suit is filed by plaintiff/respondent for specific performance of agreement dated 20.10.2008 and for alternate relief of compensation. The defendant was served with the summons in the suit. Though he appeared in the suit, he failed to file written statement. Therefore, ‘no written statement’ order was passed on 07.12.2013. Instead of seeking recall of ‘no written statement’ order dated 20.12.2013 defendant filed application for rejection of plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT AURANGABADSANDEEP V. MARNE, JPRADIP UTTAMRAO PATIL AND OTHERS – AppellantVersusSAURABH PRAMOD MAHAJAN – Respondent

BOMBAY HIGH COURT - BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
PRADIP UTTAMRAO PATIL AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
SAURABH PRAMOD MAHAJAN – Respondent