Bombay High Court
The Chief Executive Officer Zp Nanded vs Vilas Shankarrao Panpatte on 17 January, 2017
Author: S. B. Shukre
Bench: S. B. Shukre
Writ Petition No.702/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.702 OF 2017
The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded ... PETITIONER
(Original Defendant)
VERSUS
Vilas s/o Shankarrao Panpatte,
Age 48 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner,
R/o "Pushpavilas", Plot No.35, F-1,
Sector N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad ... RESPONDENT
(Original Plaintiff)
.....
Shri S.B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for petitioner
Shri N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent
.....
CORAM: S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED: 17th January, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, the order of No W.S. passed on 30/9/2016 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded has been challenged and another order dated 4/1/2017, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, refusing to recall the order dated 30/9/2016. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2017 01:13:23 ::: Writ Petition No.702/2017 2 Nanded has not taken into consideration the nature of provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has now been settled by the catena of judments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is settled law that, this provision being in the domain of procedural law and having been not accompanied by any penalty for non-compliance, has been held to be directory and not mandatory. Useful refrence in this regard could be made to the judgment of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of Sandeep Thapar Vs. Sme Technologies Private Limited reported in 2014 AIR (SC) 897. The reasons stated by the petitioner for his failure to file written statemnent within the stipulated period of time disclose sufficient cause to file written statemnet.
Therefore, I am of the view that, both the impuned orders could not be upheld on the touchstones of law as well as facts.
3. The Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to file the written statement within two weeks from the date of this order, and any failure on his part to comply with these directions, would result in his taking away right to file written statement and the trial Court would be at liberty to accordingly pass an order if there is any such non-compliance. Furhter, considering the nature of dispute raised in the civil suit, it would be in the fitness of things that the civil suit itself is disposed of at the earliest and therefore, further ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2017 01:13:23 ::: Writ Petition No.702/2017 3 direction for disposal of civil suit within period of six months from the filing of written statement is also isued. Rule is made absolute in these terms. No costs.
( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE ::: Uploaded on - 18/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/01/2017 01:13:23 :::