Mr. Trushant S. Sakpal v. Mr. Ravindra Narayan Mallya

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6976 OF 2018 Mr. Trushant S. Sakpal .... Petitioner Vs.

Mr. Ravindra Narayan Mallya .... Respondent Mr. Mahesh Vishwakarma for Petitioner Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

Date : 1ST MARCH, 2021 P.C.:

1.

The Petitioner/Original Defendant No.1 in Special Civil Suit No. 545 of 2012 moved an application, Exhibit 77 under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. praying therein for setting aside exparte order dated 14th August, 2014.

2.

Amongst other, it is claimed that for a period from 23rd August 2012 to November, 2012, the Petitioner was behind bar and the suit summons was served at his residence. It is claimed that the

2/3 Petitioner being unemployed youth, he was penniless He could not sustain the trauma of his arrest and being behind bar had a devastating effect on him and that being so, he could not attend the proceedings. 3.

According to him, the delay of about 4 years, 8 months is bonafide, as in case if the delay is not condoned, the Petitioner will be handicapped in defending the suit. As such, it is claimed that the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

Considered submissions.

5.

As far as the service of suit summons on the Petitioner/ Defendant No. 1 is an issue, which is not in dispute. 6.

As far as delay in the matter is concerned, the Petitioner has failed to explain inordinate delay of more than 4 years. Even if it is assumed that the Petitioner was behind bar for some time and not keeping well, still fact remains that there is any material to infer that after his release from the detention, he was not in a position to defend the suit by filing written statement.

3/3 7.

In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The petition fails, dismissed.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)