The Bombay High Court at Goa upholds a writ petition after its maintainability was challenged by an order from the trial court owing to delay in filing of written statement.
The Bombay High Court at Goa upholds a writ petition after its maintainability was challenged by an order from the trial court owing to delay in filing of written statement.
Title: State of Goa v. Rajaram Bandekar
Decided on: July 18, 2023
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1456
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE M.S. KARNIK
Introduction
The Bombay High Court at Goa upheld a writ petition after its maintainability was challenged by an order from the trial court owing to a delay in filing of written statement by the defendant.
Facts of the Case
This is a petition filed by the State of Goa challenging the order dated 12.12.2022, passed by the Trial Court refusing to condone the delay in filing the written statement. The facts are that the petitioners-original defendants had filed an application for condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the written statement on the grounds that the defendants were served with the summons on 06.04.2022 and on 13.05.2022, Advocate P. Joshi was appointed in the matter to defend the defendants. However, the concerned Advocate did not appear and returned the file stating that she is not willing to appear in the matter. On 14.06.2022, the matter was allotted to Advocate Priyanka Kamat. All the case papers were handed over to her on 27.06.2022. On 01.07.2022, an application was filed for extension of time and that application was fixed for reply and arguments on 20.07.2022. The period of 90 days had expired by then. There was thus a delay of 16 days in filing the written statement. The application was opposed by the plaintiff contending that the delay is not properly explained. The petition requests condonation of the delay.
Court Analysis and Judgement:
The Court found that the application for condonation of delay was accompanied by a written statement. The reason in the application for the delay is that there was a change in Advocate as the earlier Advocate and a new Government Advocate had to be appointed. As per, Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited, the delay cannot be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before the Court. However, the Court found the matter at hand was not a case of gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafides. In the case of Postmaster General v. Living Media India Limited, there was a delay of 427 days by the Postal Department in filing the said appeal and there was no explanation of sufficient cause for such delay. In the present case, there is a delay of 16 days and the cause shown has to be regarded as sufficient. The Court proposed to condone the delay by imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent within a month. A Writ Petition was allowed and the impugned order of the Trial Court was set aside by the Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Reema Nayak