Bombay High Court

MURLIDHAR PANNALAL BHUTADAversusAAKRUR FAKIRRAO NAVALE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The trial court's order is quashed and the petitioner is permitted to file an additional written statement within four weeks.

Summary

The petitioner, Murlidhar Pannalal Bhutada, challenged a December 30, 2019 order of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Georai, which proceeded with Civil Suit No. 594 of 2017 ex‑parte on the ground that no written statement was on record. In reality, a written statement had already been filed, and the petitioner sought permission to file an additional written statement after the plaintiffs amended the plaint. The trial court rejected the application on a technical basis, treating the case as if no written statement existed, and ordered the suit to continue without it. The High Court examined whether the trial court erred in refusing the application and proceeding ex‑parte. Finding that the written statement was indeed on record and that the petitioner was entitled to file a consequential statement, the Court set aside the trial court’s order, allowed the writ petition, and granted the petitioner four weeks to file the additional statement. The Court also directed that the civil suit be concluded within one year.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in proceeding ex‑parte without considering the already filed written statement.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to file an additional written statement following the amendment of the plaint.

Subjects

writ petition
civil suit
written statement
amendment of plaint
ex‑parte proceeding
procedural law
Civil Procedure Code

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:3557
1 of 3 61-WP.4011.2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

61 WRIT PETITION NO. 4011 OF 2020

MURLIDHAR PANNALAL BHUTADA
VERSUS
AAKRUR FAKIRRAO NAVALE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Ajinkya Joshi h/f. Mr. Sharad V. Natu, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shriram V. Deshmukh h/f. Mr. Devang R. Deshmukh, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2026

P.C.:-

1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2. By the present petition, the Petitioner assails the order dated

30.12.2019 passed below Exhibit-1 by the learned Civil Judge Junior

Division, Georai in Regular Civil Suit No.594 of 2017, whereby the

learned Trial Court observed that no written statement was filed and,

therefore, proceeded with the matter further.

3. In fact, on the said date, Petitioner/Defendant No.3 had

already filed an application seeking time to file an additional written

statement. However, the learned Trial Court rejected the said

application by treating the case as if no written statement was on

record. The record reveals that the written statement had already been

filed earlier. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court permitted
2 of 3 61-WP.4011.2020

Respondent Nos.1 and 2/Original Plaintiffs to amend the plaint and,

therefore, the Petitioner/Defendant No.3 had a right to file a

consequential written statement. As the application did not specifically

mention the same, the learned Trial Court rejected it and proceeded

with the suit ex-parte.

4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the rejection

of the application on such a technical ground is unsustainable and,

therefore, prays that the petition be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2

strongly opposed the petition by submitting that no additional written

statement was filed and that the suit is of the year 2017. It is submitted

that the application was filed only to delay the proceedings.

6. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, it

is evident that the written statement was already on record. The only

issue was with regard to permitting Petitioner/Defendant No.3 to file

an additional written statement pursuant to the amendment of the

plaint.

7. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow the writ

petition by setting aside the order dated 30.12.2019 passed below

Exhibit-1 by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Georai in Regular
3 of 3 61-WP.4011.2020

Civil Suit No.594 of 2017.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

9. The order dated 30.12.2019 passed below Exhibit-1 by the

learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Georai in Regular Civil Suit No.594

of 2017, whereby the learned Trial Court directed the suit to proceed

without the written statement, is hereby quashed and set aside. The

Petitioner/Defendant No.3 is granted liberty to file an additional

written statement within a period of four weeks from today.

10. Both the learned Advocates submit that the suit is of the year

2017. Therefore, this Court directs the Trial Court to decide the suit

expeditiously.

11. Regular Civil Suit No.594 of 2017 shall be decided within a

period of one year from today.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…