Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Milind Arvind Killedar, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 14.11.2016 passed by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli, in Special Civil Suit No.97 of 2010. The suit was filed in 2010 by the petitioner as plaintiff against respondent No.1, Prashant Mane, and others. Respondent No.1 filed an application at Exh.13 seeking stay of the suit on the ground that a related criminal case (Misc. Criminal Case No.1221 of 2009) was pending, and he feared that filing a written statement would prejudice his defence in the criminal case. The trial court rejected that application on 16.6.2012 and proceeded with the suit without a written statement from respondent No.1. The petitioner examined himself and other witnesses. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed an application at Exh.79 to set aside the 'No W.S.' order and to file his written statement by condoning the delay. The trial court allowed the application, imposing costs of Rs.8,000/-. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the suit was from 2010, the defendant had ample opportunity, and allowing the written statement at a late stage would prejudice the plaintiff. The High Court held that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised, as the defendant had a valid explanation for the delay (the pendency of the criminal case and the earlier stay application), and the imposition of costs compensated the plaintiff. The High Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Written Statement - Condonation of Delay - Order VIII Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 10, Section 151 CPC - The trial court allowed the defendant's application to set aside the 'No W.S.' order and file written statement after delay, imposing costs of Rs.8,000/-. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised and no interference under Article 227 was warranted. (Paras 4-8)
B) Civil Procedure - Article 227 - Scope of Interference - The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to cases of jurisdictional error or perversity; mere disagreement with the trial court's discretion is not sufficient. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the defendant's application to set aside the 'No W.S.' order and permit filing of written statement after delay, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 14.11.2016 allowing the defendant to file written statement subject to payment of costs of Rs.8,000/-.
Law Points
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
- Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Condonation of delay
- No written statement order
- Discretion of trial court
- Compensatory costs
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 48
WRIT PETITION NO.10103 OF 2017
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
Mr. Akshay Kulkarni i/by Kulkarni Ashutosh M. for the Petitioner; Mr. Pradeep D. Dalvi for the Respondents
Dr. Milind Arvind Killedar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 challenging trial court's order allowing defendant to file written statement after delay.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order dated 14.11.2016 allowing respondent No.1 to file written statement.
Filing Reason
Petitioner challenged the trial court's order allowing the defendant to file written statement after delay, arguing that the suit was from 2010 and the defendant had ample opportunity.
Previous Decisions
Trial court rejected defendant's application for stay of suit on 16.6.2012; proceeded without written statement; later allowed defendant's application to set aside 'No W.S.' order and file written statement on 14.11.2016.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order allowing the defendant to file written statement after delay is proper and should be interfered with under Article 227.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the suit was filed in 2010, the defendant had ample opportunity to file written statement, and allowing it at a late stage would prejudice the plaintiff.
Respondent No.1 argued that he had filed an application for stay of suit earlier, which was rejected, and he had a valid explanation for the delay; the trial court's order was discretionary and should not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's discretion to allow filing of written statement after delay, even after an order of 'No W.S.', is valid if the delay is explained and compensatory costs are imposed. The High Court under Article 227 will not interfere unless there is jurisdictional error or perversity.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.11.2016 passed by Joint Civil Judge Senior Division below Exh.79, in Special Civil Suit No.97 of 2010.
The trial Court had rejected the said application vide its order dated 16.6.2012 and thereafter the hearing of the suit was proceeded without written statement against respondent No.1.
While challenging this order, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that suit is filed in the year 2010.
Procedural History
Special Civil Suit No.97 of 2010 filed by petitioner in 2010. Defendant filed Exh.13 for stay of suit, rejected on 16.6.2012. Suit proceeded without written statement; plaintiff examined himself and witnesses. Defendant filed Exh.79 to set aside 'No W.S.' order and file written statement; allowed on 14.11.2016 with costs of Rs.8,000/-. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10103 of 2017 under Article 227 challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VIII Rule 1, Order VIII Rule 10, Section 151
- Constitution of India: Article 227
