Bombay High Court
INDRAVADAN A. SONAVANEversusVIMAL @ BHAGYASHRI SHARAD SHIRSAT AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The trial court's order rejecting the condonation application is set aside, and the petitioner is allowed to file the written statement within eight weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Indravadan A. Sonavane, filed a writ petition challenging a civil judge's order that rejected his application for condonation of a 16‑month delay in filing the written statement and for recalling a "No W.S." order. The petitioner argued that the delay was explained and that Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directory, not mandatory, citing the Supreme Court decision in Kailash v. Nanhku. The High Court examined whether the trial court should have allowed the condonation. Finding the Supreme Court precedent persuasive, the Court held that the trial court erred and set aside its order, directing the petitioner to file the written statement within eight weeks. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 16 months in filing a written statement can be condoned under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- Whether the "No W.S." order should be recalled
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order VIII Rule 1
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- written statement
- civil procedure
- writ petition
- Order VIII Rule 1
- appeal jurisdiction
Judgment
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
Digitally
signed by
MANE
MANE SONALI
SONALI DILIP
is the Sub Registrar who was present in the office at the time of
DILIP Date:
2026.09.24
10:57:04
+0530
___Page No.1 of 2___
22 September 2026
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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.