1 WP 6088.2010 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6088 OF 2010 1. Santosh Parshram Yedale Age : 31 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Mohanal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. 2. Bhartibai Sopanrao Telange Age : 52 Yrs., Occ. H.H. & Agriculture, R/o : Latur Road, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. ........... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Madrawati Balaji Telange Age : 41 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture & H.H., R/o Mohanal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. 2. Sunita Balaji Telange Age : 22 Yrs., Occ. Education, R/o Mohanal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. 3. Anusaya Balaji Telange Age : 19 Yrs., Occ. Education, R/o Mohanal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. 4. Sangita Balaji Telange Age : 19 Yrs., Occ. Education, R/o Mohanal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. 2 WP 6088.2010 - [ J ] 5. Govind Balaji Telange Age : 12 Yrs., Occ. Education, R/o Mohanal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. 6. Gopal Balaji Telange Age : 10 Yrs., Occ. Education, R/o Mohanal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. (Resp. Nos. 4 to 6 – minor, U/g of their mother i.e. Resp. No. 1. ) 7. Balaji Ramrao Telange Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o Mohanal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. 8. Ratnabai Ramrao Telange Age : 73 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o Mohanal, Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. 9. Urmila Dhondiram Telange Age : 31 Yrs., Occ. Agril. & H.H., R/o Ashta, Tq. Chakur, Dist. : Latur. At Present R/o : Gorbakaka Hou. Society, Latur, Dist. Latur. 10. Babruwan Hanmant Bhandare Age : 47 Yrs., Occ. : Agril., R/o : Pangaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. ..... RESPONDENTS 3 WP 6088.2010 - [ J ] Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D.Gunale, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.M.Kagne, Advocate for Resp. No.1 to 6. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14/10/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners to carry out amendment for deleting respondents forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The present respondent nos. 1 to 6 are the original plaintiffs, who had filed Suit for declaration that the sale deeds are null and void, for partition and separate possession. The present petitioners are defendant nos. 3 and 6, who after appearing did not file the Written Statement within time stipulated and on 10/7/2009, the trial Court passed order of ‘ No W.S. ’ against the petitioners. On 05/11/2009, the petitioners submitted an application [ Exh. 42 ] for setting aside the ‘ No W.S. ’ order and also filed their Written Statement. The trial Court rejected the application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is 4 WP 6088.2010 - [ J ] filed. 4. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has taken very hyper technical approach in not considering the application [ Exh. 42 ]. According to the petitioners they appeared in June, 2009 and in November, 2009 the Written Statement was filed. The same should have been accepted. The defendant no. 3 was suffering from Chikangoniya and was under treatment and defendant no. 6 is an old lady suffering from various diseases due to old age. 5. Mr. Kagane, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners appeared in October, 2008 and they were granted about 10 – 12 chances for filing Written Statement, still they did not file the Written Statement. The provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have to be complied. No valid reasons are given. Even the Doctor who was examined to prove the ground agitated by the petitioners, could not support the case of the petitioners and as such the trial Court rightly rejected the said application. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the application and the order. 7. In fact, the matter was proceeding exparte. The Suit deals 5 WP 6088.2010 - [ J ] with the immovable property, where the sale deed, by virtue of which the petitioners became the owner, is also subject matter of the Suit. In such cases, it is always in fitness of things to get the matter decided on merits. The rights of the parties in the immovable properties are involved in the Suit. The petitioners have given the reasons and have also examined the Doctor. The same should have been believed by the Court. 8. In view of the above conspectus of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application [ Exh. 42 ] is allowed on condition that the petitioners pay cost of Rs. 3,000/- [ Rupees Three Thousand only ] to the original plaintiffs within the period of four ( 4 ) weeks from today i.e. 16/11/2011. The cost may be paid directly to the plaintiffs or may be deposited in the trial Court. 9. The Trial Court, taking into account the nature of the Suit, shall decide the Suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of nine ( 9 ) months from today. 10. Rule is made absolute with above observations and directions. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 6088.2010 - [ J ] 6 WP 6088.2010 - [ J ]