Case Note & Summary
The case involves two writ petitions filed against a common order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 02/2014. The trial court had rejected applications (Exh. 15 and 16) filed by the defendants seeking to set aside the 'no WS' order and to take their written statement on record. The High Court, after hearing the counsels, observed that the trial court at most should have imposed costs for taking the written statement on record, rather than rejecting the applications. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order, and permitted the written statement to be taken on record. The decision emphasizes that procedural technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice, and costs can be imposed as a condition for condoning delay in filing written statements.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Setting aside 'no WS' order - The trial court rejected applications for taking written statement on record; the High Court held that the trial court should have imposed costs instead of rejecting the applications. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the written statement was permitted to be taken on record. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the applications filed by the defendants for setting aside the 'no WS' order and taking the written statement on record.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are allowed. The common order dated 29.09.2014 passed below Exh. 15 and 16 in Regular Civil Suit No. 02/2014 is quashed and set aside. Both applications are allowed and the written statement is permitted to be taken on record.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure
- Written Statement
- Setting aside no WS order
- Imposition of costs
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 73
Writ Petition No. 5661/2014 and Writ Petition No. 7344/2014
Shri N.A. Jachak for Petitioners in WP 5661/2014; Shri P.R. Puri for Respondent 1 in both petitions
Balkrishna Pandurang Kamble, Bisan Pandurang Kamble, Shriram Pandurang Kamble (in WP 5661/2014); Sau. Sunderbai Manohar Bhujade, Sau. Mangala @ Indira Diwakar Mankar (in WP 7344/2014)
Sau. Chandrakala Mohan Sahare, Sau. Sunderbai Manohar Bhujade, Sau. Mangala @ Indira Diwakar Mankar (in WP 5661/2014); Sau. Chandrakala Mohan Sahare, Balkrishna Pandurang Kamble, Bisan Pandurang Kamble, Shriram Pandurang Kamble (in WP 7344/2014)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petitions challenging a trial court order rejecting applications to set aside 'no WS' order and take written statement on record.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (defendants in the suit) sought to set aside the 'no WS' order and have their written statement taken on record.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the defendants' applications for setting aside the 'no WS' order and taking the written statement on record.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed a common order dated 29.09.2014 below Exh. 15 and 16 in Regular Civil Suit No. 02/2014, rejecting the applications.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the applications for setting aside the 'no WS' order and taking the written statement on record.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the trial court should have imposed costs instead of rejecting the applications.
The respondent opposed the applications.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court should have imposed costs for taking the written statement on record instead of rejecting the applications. The order rejecting the applications was quashed and set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The trial court at the most should have imposed the cost for taking W.S. on record.
The order, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 02/2014 passed a common order on 29.09.2014 rejecting the defendants' applications (Exh. 15 and 16) to set aside the 'no WS' order and take the written statement on record. The defendants filed two writ petitions challenging this order. The High Court heard the matter and allowed the petitions.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 8 Rule 1, Order 8 Rule 10
