Wings Automotive Through Its Proprietor Ranjeet Shriniwas Reddy Malake vs. Blue Star Engineers Aurangabad

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's application for leave to defend was belated and lacked grounds for delay. The defense raised was considered a 'sham defence' with no prima facie triable issue. The subsequent applications to set aside the 'no written statement' order by condoning delay were also rejected as they were filed belatedly without explaining the delay and were consequential to the dismissed leave to defend application. The Court noted that the petitioner had not shown willingness to deposit any amount to grant leave to defend. Therefore, no case was made out for granting leave to defend. The writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Wings Automotive, challenged two orders passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Summary Civil Suit No. 894 of 2022. The first order, dated 24.07.2023, rejected the petitioner's application for leave to defend the suit. The petitioner had failed to appear in response to judgment summons and file the leave to defend application promptly. Subsequent applications filed by the petitioner at Exhibits 24-A, 26, and 27, seeking to set aside the 'no written statement' order by condoning delay, were also rejected by the order dated 14.12.2023. The court noted that these applications were filed belatedly without explaining the delay and were considered consequential to the dismissed leave to defend application. The plaintiff's case is based on pending GST invoices totaling Rs. 10,77,420.35 since October 22, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for leave to defend the summary suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 2. Whether the subsequent applications filed by the petitioner for condoning delay and setting aside the 'no written statement' order were maintainable after the dismissal of the application for leave to defend? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the applications for leave to defend and subsequent applications for condoning delay were validly filed. The petitioner likely argued that the trial court failed to consider the merits of their defense and that the delay was justifiable. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the court's observations suggest that the applications were dismissed due to being belated, lacking grounds for delay, and the defense raised being prima facie sham with no triable issue.