“Partition Rights Can't Be Decided On Technicalities”: Bombay High Court Allows Written Statement After 8-Yr Delay

The Bombay High Court has held that delay in filing a written statement may be condoned in partition suits where denial of such opportunity would prevent effective adjudication of the rights of the parties. The Court observed that refusal to permit a defendant to file a written statement may hinder proper determination of rights in the property and prolong the litigation.Justice Ajit B. Kadethankar was hearing a writ petition filed by Narayan Dattarao Sontakke challenging the order of the Civil Judge, by which the trial court refused to condone a delay of 58 days in filing the written statement in a partition suit filed by his step-brother seeking partition and separate possession of the suit property. The suit had been instituted in 2016. The defendant entered appearance and sought permission to file his written statement along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that sufficient cause had not been shown, resulting in the present writ petition.The Court noted that it is not only a case of delay of 58 days caused in filing the written statement, but Writ Petition itself has filed 08 years after the impugned order was passed.The High Court observed that the nature of the litigation is as such that the stake of defendant shall not be decided by the learned Trial Court merely on the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiff. The nature of decree sought in the suit is such that during the execution of the decree again the right of defendant will be needed to be answered.The Court further emphasised that if the defendant were denied the opportunity to place his pleadings on record, the eventual decree might become vulnerable to challenge on the ground that he had been denied an opportunity to present his case. Such a situation could lead to further litigation at the appellate or execution stage and defeat the objective of bringing the dispute to a final resolution.“… the petitioner/defendant be given an opportunity to place on record his pleadings. This is also so because conclusion of the present Partition Trial in the absence of pleadings by defendant would merely keep the parties engaged in prolonged litigation on the ground that the defendant was denied an opportunity of being heard.”Taking into account the peculiar facts of the case, including the nature of the litigation, the age of the parties and the need for effective adjudication of their rights, the Court held that the defendant ought to be given an opportunity to file his written statement so that the controversy could be resolved on merits rather than on technical grounds.The Court noted that although the impugned order was passed in 2016 and the writ petition was filed in 2024, the suit itself had remained pending for several years and the evidence was only partly recorded. In these circumstances, permitting the written statement to be taken on record would better serve the ends of justice.Accordingly, the High Court quashed the trial court's order and allowed the application seeking condonation of delay, permitting the defendant's written statement to be taken on record. The Court, however, imposed costs of ₹15,000 on the petitioner.Case Title: Narayan Dattarao Sontakke v. Nagnath Dattarao Sontakke [Writ Petition No. 12117 of 2024]Click Here To Read/Download Order

“Partition Rights Can't Be Decided On Technicalities”: Bombay High Court Allows Written Statement After 8-Yr Delay

Saksham Vaishya

Tags