Bombay High Court
TUSHAR KOKANEversusSEBASTIAN JOSEPH
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The delay in filing the written statements is condoned.
Summary
The defendants (Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8) filed their written statements 68 days after the prescribed period, seeking condonation of delay. The plaintiff did not request any additional time to file a reply‑affidavit but argued that the delay was not adequately explained. The Court examined the interim applications and found that the delay was not inordinate, was sufficiently explained in the applications, and that Defendant No.1 had not yet been served with the writ of summons. The Judge held that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff and that the interests of justice required allowing the defendants to contest the suit on its merits. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay and disposed of the interim applications.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 68 days in filing written statements can be condoned under the Civil Procedure Code.
- Whether the delay causes prejudice to the plaintiff.
- Whether the interests of justice warrant allowing the defendants to file their written statements despite the delay.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- written statement
- interim application
- civil procedure
- service of summons
- prejudice
- interest of justice
Judgment
8-IA-2728-2026 (OS).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2728 OF 2026
IN
Digitally
signed by
BASAVRAJ
SUIT NO.309 OF 2025
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA WITH
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL Date: INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2726 OF 2026
2026.08.28
10:43:01
+0530 IN
SUIT NO. 309 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2723 OF 2026
IN
SUIT NO. 309 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2724 OF 2026
IN
SUIT NO. 309 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2729 OF 2026
IN
SUIT NO. 309 OF 2025
Tushar Kokane … Applicant
In the matter between:
Ascent Meditech Ltd. … Plaintiff
Versus
Sebastian Joseph & Ors. … Defendants
_______
Mr. Prabhakar Jadhav for the Applicants in IA/2728/2026,
2726/2026, 2723/2026, 2729/2026
Basavraj Page|1
8-IA-2728-2026 (OS).DOC
Mr. Vighnesh Kamat i/b. Parag More for the Applicant in
IA/2724/2026
Mr. Karthik Kiran Pillai i/b. Pragnya Legal for the Plaintiff
Mr. Shamant Satiya i/b. Priyansh Jain for Defendant No.1
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026
P.C.
1. These interim applications seek condonation of delay of 68
days in filing of the written statement of Defendant Nos.2, 3, 5,
6 and 8. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff does not seek time
to file Reply-Affidavit but only contends that the delay has not
been sufficiently explained.
2. Having perused the Interim Applications and having noted
that firstly, the delay is not inordinate and in my view, the same
has sufficiently been explained in paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of the
Interim Applications as also having noted the fact that Defendant
No.1 has not yet been served with the writ of summons, I find
no prejudice would be caused in allowing the present Interim
Applications. The substantial interest of justice would best be
served if the Defendants are afforded an opportunity to contest
Basavraj Page|2
8-IA-2728-2026 (OS).DOC
the Suit on merits.
3. The delay in filing the written statement is condoned. The
Interim Applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
Basavraj Page|3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.