1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 25 WRIT PETITION NO.2771 OF 2023 Mallinath s/o. Sharnayya Swami Age : 75 years, Occu : Business, Prop. M/s. M.S. Swami, Jakekur / Chowrasta, Omerga, … Petitioner Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad (Orig. Plaintiff) Versus Pramod s/o. Digambar Jadhav, Age : 43 years, Occu : Business, R/o. Dongargaon, Post. Ramling Mudgad, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur … Respondent (Orig. Defendant) ….. Shri. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri. S. P. Urgunde, Advocate for the Respondent ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. Dated : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026 FINAL ORDER :- . Heard the learned Advocates appearing for both the sides. 2. Considering the short issue raised in this Writ Petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Petition at admission stage by consent of the learned Advocates for both the sides. 3. In the Petition the Petitioner has put forth the following substantive prayers: “B) By an order of this Hon’ble Court, kindly quash and set aside the impugned order passed below Exh.22 in Summary Civil Suit No.1/2016 on 08.06.2017 and consequently the application below exh.22 may kindly be 2026:BHC-AUG:41901 2 rejected. C) By an order of this Hon’ble Court, kindly quash and set aside the impugned order passed below Exh.60 in Summary Civil Suit No.1/2016 on 29.11.2022 and consequently the application below exh.60 may kindly be rejected.” 4. SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERATION :- 4.1. So far as the prayer clause ‘B’ is concerned, Shri. Shailendra S. Gangakhedkar, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner (Orig. Plaintiff) would submit that in the summary civil suit the Respondent (Orig. Defendant) failed to file his defence within the stipulated period and therefore, his right to file Written-statement got forfeited. He would submit that thereafter the Respondent filed application seeking condonation of 22 days delay and the same was allowed. 4.2. Thereafter, the Defendant filed Application below Exh.22 seeking permission to file Written-Statement. The same was also allowed by the learned Trial Court, however without imposing appropriate condition. 4.3. Mr. Gangakhedkar would submit that the learned Trial Court passed the cryptic order directing the Defendant to pay the due amount within one (1) month, if the suit stands decreed. It is further submitted that in view of the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Oil and Natural Gas Corpn Ltd vs. State Bank of India reported in AIR 2002 BOMBAY 32 in Paragraph No.12, it was incumbent on the part of the 3 Trial Court to impose some conditions upon the Defendant to deposit the claim amount or at least a portion thereof. 4.4. Mr. Gangakhedkar would submit that obviously disbursement of the such amount would depend on the merits of the case raised by the Plaintiff. 4.5. Lastly, it is prayed that, in view of this, the matter be relegated back to the learned Trial Court to pass an appropriate order. 4.6. Shri. S. P. Urgunde, the learned Advocate for the Respondent would object such prayer. He would submit that the Trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. He would further submit that the necessary interest of the Petitioner - Plaintiff is protected by the impugned order and hence this prayer may not be entertained. 4.7. I find that the prayer clause ‘B’ advanced by Shri. Gangakhedkar, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is moderate one in view of the law laid down by this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corpn Ltd (supra). 4.8. So far as the prayer clause ‘C’ is concerned, Shri Gangakhedkar, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner has submitted that the documents sought by the Defendant are already filed by the Plaintiff with the plaint and those are part of the suit itself. It is pointed out that 4 the pleadings in the suit which would demonstrate that those documents are referred in the plaint and are produced by the Plaintiff with the plaint. It is also submitted that in view of this, the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 is also not justified. It appears that, the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the pleadings which show that the documents in question are filed by the Plaintiff along with the plaint. It is submitted that the impugned order also be quashed and set aside and the learned Trial Court be directed to pass the appropriate order considering the pleadings and the documents annexed with the plaint. 4.9. Mr. S. P. Urgunde, the learned Advocate for the Respondent opposes this prayer also. He would submit that to give an opportunity to the Defendant to discharge his burden, the learned Trial Court has rightly directed the Plaintiff to make discovery of the documents sought by the Defendant. 4.10. It appears that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration this aspect of pleadings and the annexures. Considering the moderate prayer i.e. prayer clause ‘C’, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back for reconsideration and for fresh orders. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid, the following order is passed. ORDER [A] (i) So far as the prayer clause ‘B’ is concerned, the same stands 5 partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division Omerga on the Application below Exh.22 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The learned Trial Court shall hear the parties on the said Application (Exh.22) afresh and would pass the appropriate order keeping in mind the provisions of law and the law discussed by this Court in the matter of Oil and Natural Gas Corpn Ltd (supra). [B](i) So far as the prayer clause ‘C’ is concerned, the same stands partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division Omerga in Summary Civil Suit No. 1/2016 on an application below Exh.60 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The learned Trial Court shall hear the parties and consider the Application below Exh.60 afresh and would pass appropriate order in view of the observations made in this order and in accordance with law. (C) The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. (D) Parties undertake to appear before the learned Trial Court on 15.09.2026. (E) All the contentions are kept open. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) GGP