Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10970 (BOM)

INDRAVADAN A. SONAVANE v. VIMAL @ BHAGYASHRI SHARAD SHIRSAT AND ORS.

WP/23/2018 · 2026-09-22

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Sonali Mane 35-WP-23-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 23 OF 2018 Indravadan A. Sonavane … Petitioner Versus Vimal @ Bhagyashri Sharad Shirsat And Ors. … Respondents Mr. Omkar Nagvekar i/b Ms. Prabha U. Badadare for Petitioner. None for Respondents. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 22 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. : 1) The Petition is filed challenging Order dated 18 September 2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Niphad, rejecting the Petitioner's application at Exhibit 85 seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement and for recall of the 'No W.S. Order. 2) Respondent No.1 is the original Plaintiff, who is duly served. However, none has appeared on behalf Respondent No.1. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that there was a delay of only 16 months in filing the written statement. He submits that the delay is properly explained. He submits that Petitioner is the Sub Registrar who was present in the office at the time of ___Page No. 1 of 2 ___ 22 September 2026 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2026.09.24 10:57:04 +0530 Sonali Mane 35-WP-23-2018.docx registration of the document in question. Petitioner is not the main contesting party in the suit. The consequences of non filing of written statement is disastrous. The Apex Court as held in Kailash Vs. Nanhku & Ors.1 has held that the period provided for in Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory but directory. Considering the reasons pleaded in the application at Exhibit 85, in my view, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 4) The impugned Order dated 18 September 2017 is accordingly set aside. Application at Exhibit 85 is allowed in terms of prayer made therein. Petitioner shall tender his written statement within a period of eight weeks. 5) The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms and is accordingly disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] 1 2005 (4) SCC 480 ___Page No. 2 of 2 ___ 22 September 2026