Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: CNR No. MHSCA3-00-0317-2024 Presented on : 26.03.2024.
Registered on : 12.04.2024.
Decided on : 31.10.2025.
Duration : Yrs. Mths. Days
1 7 5
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MUMBAI
(APPELLATE BENCH)
(BANDRA BRANCH)
REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 of 2024
IN
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 12
IN
R.A.E. SUIT NO. 223 OF 2023
Indrayani Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.
a company incorporated under the Companies
Act, having its registered office at Flat No. 4,
2nd floor, Dhoop Chhaon, Plot No. 201, Shri
Narsinh Mehta Marg, Road No. 28, Bandra
(West), Mumbai 400 050.
Applicant (Org.
plaintiff)
Versus
Dr. Rajesh Gangadhar Dashaputre
Residing at C-3, Shiv-Kutir, Veer Savarkar
Marg, Near Catering Institute, Shivaji Park,
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028
Respondent (Org.
defendant)
AND
CNR No. MHSCA3-00-0307-2024 Presented on : 26.03.2024.
Registered on : 10.04.2024.
Decided on : 31.10.2025.
Duration : Yrs. Mths. Days
1 7 5
REVISION APPLICATION NO. 31 of 2024
IN
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 13
IN
R.A.E. SUIT NO. 223 OF 2023
Indrayani Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.
a company incorporated under the Companies
Act, having its registered office at Flat No. 4,
2nd floor, Dhoop Chhaon, Plot No. 201, Shri
Narsinh Mehta Marg, Road No. 28, Bandra
(West), Mumbai 400 050.
Applicant (Org.
plaintiff)
-- 1 of 6 --
::2::
Rev. Apln. No. 30 of 2024
& Rev. Apln. No. 31 of 2024 Judgment…
Versus
Dr. Rajesh Gangadhar Dashaputre
Residing at C-3, Shiv-Kutir, Veer Savarkar
Marg, Near Catering Institute, Shivaji Park,
Dadar (West), Mumbai 400 028
Respondent (Org.
defendant)
Advocate Shri Kaushal K. Thakker for applicant.
Advocate Shri Anil A. Jakatdar for respondent.
Coram : Shri Ashish A. Ayachit,
Addl. Chief Judge
&
Shri D.R. Mali, Judge.
C.R. No. 41 (B.B.)
Date : 31st Day of October, 2025.
COMMON JUDGMENT :
(Per Shri Ashish A. Ayachit, Addl. Chief Judge)
These revision applications have been filed under Section
34(4) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, challenging the legality,
validity, and correctness of the orders passed below Exhibits 12 and 13
in R.A.E. Suit No. 223 of 2023 by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai,
Bandra Branch, Court Room No. 33, dated 23.02.2024.
2. We have referred to the parties by their original
nomenclature as they appeared before the learned Trial Court. The
applicant herein is the original plaintiff, and the respondent is the
original defendant before the learned Trial Court.
3. Both the revision applications have been heard together,
and considering their nature, they are being decided by this common
judgment.
4. We have perused the revision applications, the impugned
orders, and the record and heard the learned Advocate Shri Kaushal
-- 2 of 6 --
::3::
Rev. Apln. No. 30 of 2024
& Rev. Apln. No. 31 of 2024 Judgment…
Thakker for the plaintiff and the learned Advocate Shri Anil A. Jakatdar
for the defendant.
5. Learned Advocate Shri Kaushal Thakker for the plaintiff
opened his arguments by submitting that the learned Trial Court erred
in allowing the defendant to place the written statement on record by
setting aside the order of “no written statement” and by condoning the
delay in filing the same. He drew our attention to the observations
made by the learned Trial Court and submitted that the reasons and
explanations tendered by the defendant, namely, that he met with an
accident in the year 2001 and suffered a heart attack in the year 2020
are neither justifiable nor probable. He further submitted that even the
learned Trial Court did not accept the explanation while setting aside
the order to proceed with the suit without a written statement and in
condoning the delay in filing the same. He relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Mool Chandra v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR
2024 SC 4046). Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is
illegal and liable to be set aside.
6. Learned Advocate Shri Anil A. Jakatdar submitted that the
written statement had been filed after 30 days but within 90 days. He
admitted that there was a delay of 54 days; however, he supported the
impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the revision applications.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :
7. Upon hearing the submissions of the learned advocates for
both parties, the following points arise for our consideration and
determination. We have recorded our findings for the reasons given
below :
-- 3 of 6 --
::4::
Rev. Apln. No. 30 of 2024
& Rev. Apln. No. 31 of 2024 Judgment…
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the impugned orders suffer with
illegality, validity and incorrectness ?
No.
2. Whether the interference is required in
the said impugned order ?
No.
3. What order ? Revision application
is dismissed as per
final order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS. 1 & 2 :
8. Upon perusal of the record and after hearing the learned
advocates, it is evident that the plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction in
the year 2023 on various grounds. The defendant failed to file the
written statement, and therefore, the learned Trial Court passed an
order on 07.12.2023 to proceed with the suit without a written
statement. The defendant, thereafter filed Application Exhibit 12 for
setting aside the order dated 07.12.2023 passed for proceeding without
a written statement, and Application Exhibit 13 for condonation of
delay of 54 days in filing the written statement. It is a matter of record
that the written statement has been filed pursuant to the impugned
order, within 90 days but after the expiry of 30 days.
9. Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers
the Court to extend the time to file a written statement beyond 30 days
and up to 90 days. It is a settled principle of law that, in exceptional
circumstances and for justifiable reasons, the Court may also allow the
filing of a written statement even after the prescribed period of 90
days. Learned Advocate Shri Kaushal Thakker has vehemently
-- 4 of 6 --
::5::
Rev. Apln. No. 30 of 2024
& Rev. Apln. No. 31 of 2024 Judgment…
contended that once the Court did not accept the reasons for
condonation of delay, the application ought to have been rejected.
However, we do not find any merit in his submission. The explanation
tendered by the defendant for not filing the written statement within
30 days but within 90 days though referring to incidents of the years
2001 and 2020 cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject the application.
Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically provides
that the defendant shall file the written statement within 30 days from
the date of service of summons in support of his defence, and if the
defendant fails to do so within 30 days, the Court may, for reasons to
be recorded, extend the time for filing the same, but not beyond 90
days from the service of summons. Admittedly, the learned Trial Court
permitted the defendant to file the written statement within 90 days,
which falls within its judicial discretion.
10. The citation relied upon by the learned Advocate for the
plaintiff pertains to different facts and circumstances and, therefore,
does not assist in determining the present revision applications.
11. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 34(4) of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act is limited to examining whether the
impugned orders are according to law. Considering the aforesaid
discussion, it is crystal clear that both the impugned orders are in
accordance with law. It is well settled that once judicial discretion has
been exercised, the same cannot be substituted in revisional
jurisdiction. Furthermore, permitting the defendant to file the written
statement does not prejudice the rights of the plaintiff. The delay of 54
days in filing the written statement has already been adequately
compensated by the learned Trial Court by imposing costs of Rs.
-- 5 of 6 --
::6::
Rev. Apln. No. 30 of 2024
& Rev. Apln. No. 31 of 2024 Judgment…
1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). Therefore, the impugned orders
are proper, legal, and correct. We do not find any illegality or
perversity therein. Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the same.
Hence, we answer Point Nos. 1 and 2 accordingly.
AS TO POINT NO. 3 :
12. In view of the aforesaid findings, both the revision
applications failed. Considering the nature of order, we do not wish to
impose costs to plaintiff of these revision applications. Hence, we
answer point No. 3 accordingly and pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. The Revision application No. 30 of 2024 and Revision
Application no. 31 of 2024 are dismissed.
2. The orders dated 23.02.2024 passed below Exh. 12 and
Exh. 13 in R.A.E. Suit No. 223 of 2023 are hereby
confirmed.
3. Both the parties to bear their own costs.
4. Notify the order to learned Trial Court.
I Agree,
(Dipak R. Mali) (Ashish A. Ayachit)
Judge Addl. Chief Judge,
C.R. No. 41 C.R. No. 41
31.10.2025 31.10.2025
Judgment dictated on : 31.10.2025.
Judgment transcribed on : 31.10.2025.
Judgment checked & signed on : 31.10.2025.
/home/steno31/Desktop/swati zad/AA Ayachit-2025/Judgments since June 2025/OCT-NOV 2025/30-24,31-24Rev.Com.Jt.(no WS order set asideByTC,Pl'sRev dism.by AC)31.10.25.odt
-- 6 of 6 --