1 WP1606/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1606 OF 2005 Shri Bhausaheb Bhaurao Khade .... Petitioner Vs. Shri Kachru Tabaji Sangale & Ors. .... Respondents None for petitioner. None for respondents. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st October, 2010 P.C. 1. None present for the petitioner and respondents. The Writ Petition is dismissed for default. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J) (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J) 2 WP1606/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1606 OF 2005 Shri Bhausaheb Bhaurao Khade .... Petitioner Vs. Shri Kachru Tabaji Sangale & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. M.S. Karnik a/w Mr. Sachin Gite Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Mogre i/by S.M. Gorwadkar, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st October, 2010 P.C. 1. On the oral request of Mr. Karnik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is restored to file. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J) (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J) 3 WP1606/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1606 OF 2005 Shri Bhausaheb Bhaurao Khade .... Petitioner Vs. Shri Kachru Tabaji Sangale & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. M.S. Karnik a/w Mr. Sachin Gite Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Mogre i/by S.M. Gorwadkar, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 1st October, 2010 P.C. 1. This writ petition arises out of the order dated 13th January 2005 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nashik Road, rejecting the application at Exhibit 68 filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order of No W.S. passed against him. The learned trial Judge “ ” found the petitioner to be utterly negligent in attending to the matter and in filing his written statement. It was the claim of the petitioner that with the creation of the new Court at Nashik Road, the suit herein i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2004 was bound to be transferred to that Court and therefore he was not required to file 4 WP1606/2005 written statement until the suit was transferred to Nashik Road. There could be no connection whatsoever between the transfer of the proceedings on creation of a new court and filing of the written statement by the petitioner in the suit. The suit filed by respondent no.1 herein is for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The petitioner is a subsequent purchaser. The other defendant i.e. the vendor of the petitioner has already filed his written statement and the suit is bound to proceed for evidence after framing of issues. In that circumstance, despite there has been total negligence on the part of the petitioner, he can be granted an opportunity of filing his written statement by compensating the respondents with costs. Hence on the petitioner paying costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- to the respondents within a period of one week from today, the rule in the petition is made absolute. The petitioner shall pay the costs quantified Rs.15,000/- to the respondents within a period of one week starting from 4th October 2010. He shall also file his written statement within a period of one week from 4th October 2010. (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J) (Smt.R.P. SondurBaldota, J)