Balasaheb Rambhau Datal And Others v. Dipali Machindra Thombre And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10381 OF 2016 Balasaheb Rambhu Datal age 60 years, occ. Agri r/o Late Galli, Manik Chauk Dist. Ahmednagar Balasaheb Nivrutti Jadhav age 40 years, occ. Agril Suresh Nivrutti Jadhav age 49 years, occ. Agril r/o Infront of Burhannagar Devi Temple Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar Ramdas Manjaba Tanpure age 63 years, occ. Agril r/o Chinchondi Patil Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar Nanda Ramesh Tanpure age 53 years, occ. Gril r/o Shriramnagar, Shriram Chowk Pipeline Road, Savedi Ahmednagar .. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Dipali Machindra Thombre age 27 years, occ. Agril;

Kimaya Machindra Thombre ag3 3, occ. Education Kaya Machindra Thombre age 2, occ. Nil (respondent no. 1 is guardian of respondent no. 2 and 3) Respondent no 1 to 3 r/o c/o Bapu Bhaurao Adhav House no. 48, New Premdan HUDCO Behind of Nobel Hospital, Savedi Ahmednagar Laxman Kisan Thombre

age 83, occ. Agril Suman Kisan Thombre ag 68 years, occ. Agril Arun Kisan Thombre age 37 years, occ. Agril Bhakti Arun Thombre (Under guardianship of Arun Kisan Thombre) age 5, occ. Education Ujwala Dilip Surwase age 36 years, occ. Agril Swati Anil Surwase age 36 years, occ. Hh Satyabhama @ Rajashri Sharad Shinde age 31 years, occ. Agril r/o marutiwadi, Bhatodi Rod, bhatodi, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar Shantabai Bansi Pawar Respondents 5 to 9 and 11 r/o Chinchondi Patil, Tq. & Dist. Ahmedangar .. RESPONDENTS Mr. V.V. Tarde, advocate for petitioners.

Mr. D.R. Markad, advocate for respondents 1 to 3. ===== CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.

DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 3.

On going through the impugned order as well as the nature of the

claim made under the plaint, I am of the view that the ends of justice shall be meet if petitioners are permitted to file written statement by condoning delay occurred, subject to their paying substantial cost to the contesting respondents 1 to 3. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 4.

Impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application vide Exh. 23 is allowed and it is directed that written statement be filed on the next date of hearing fixed in the matter. This is however, subject to condition that before petitioners are allowed to file the written statement on the next date, petitioners altogether shall pay to respondents 1 to 3 through respondent no. 1, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as cost. Payment of cost being pre-requisite, any breach of this condition shall result in dismissal of writ petition and confirming the impugned order. Rule is accordingly made absolute. The suit be disposed of within one y ear from the date of the order.

( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE dyb