Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: :1: Ch.Sum. No.12/2018 in Sum. Suit No.117/2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.12 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC010000782018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 117 OF 2017
Cineline India Ltd. ]...Applicant
(Original defendant No.2)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Mr. Anil Sudhakar Unhavane ]...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Deepak S. Hanchate ]...Defendant No.1
2. Cineline India Ltd. ]...Defendant No.2
Appearances:
Advocate Meena Kharat h/f. Advocate Sunil J. Kanouija for the plaintiff.
Advocate Shah for the defendant No.2.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.9)
DATED : 22nd JANUARY, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant No.2 has filed this Chamber Summons for
condonation of delay of 197 days in filing the appearance in the suit.
Defendant No.2 has stated it is the Company having business of
development of world class shopping malls situated at Mumbai, Thane
and Goa. Defendant No.2 has stated that suit is not maintainable
against them on various grounds. It appears present application has
filed for condonation of delay. Defendant No.2 has stated that the
summons was received by the receptionist on duty and she forwarded
-- 1 of 4 --
:2: Ch.Sum. No.12/2018 in Sum. Suit No.117/2017
the Writ of Summons to authorized person within defendant No.2
Company. Defendant No.2 has stated that Writ of Summons was sent by
them to the office of their Advocate but their Advocate was not
available in India and he only arrived by 29th May, 2017 and on arrival
in India, the Advocate was required to go to Chennai on 30th May 2017.
He has further stated that subsequently the Court was closed for
summer vacation and when the Court was reopened their Advocate was
required to travel outstation and he was unable to take such steps to
protect the interests of the defendant No.2. He has further stated that
subsequently again Mr. Vinod Talreja was required to travel to Diu and
then to Chennai. He has further stated that his Advocate was required
to travel again to New Delhi to appear in the matter. He has further
stated that the Advocate was precluded from various circumstances
from advising the defendant No.2 and entering appearance. He has
further stated that his Advocate was again required to travel in the
month of August 2017 to South East Asia and then to Surat and was
subsequently again very busy to look into the matter. He has further
stated that due to complications of health of Advocate's mother his
Advocate was required to take his mother to Bombay Hospital. No steps
could have been taken by the Advocates to enter appearance in this
case. He has further stated that due to heavy rains office of the
Advocate was flooded, due to which Advocate was required to relocate
himself and therefore appearance could not be filed in this case upto
August 2017. He has further stated that plaintiff had filed Criminal
Complaint against defendant before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Court
at Kurla and defendant No.2 was required to look into the status of this
case. He has further stated that defendant No.2 office immediately got
in touch with office of the Advocate. However, the papers of the present
case could not be located and caused several delay in sourcing the
-- 2 of 4 --
:3: Ch.Sum. No.12/2018 in Sum. Suit No.117/2017
papers from the firm of the Advocate.
2. Plaintiff has filed reply to this Chamber Summons and stated
that defendant No.2 has not given proper and sufficient reason for
condonation of delay in filing the appearance. He has stated that the
reason about traveling of Advocate Mr. Vinod Talreja out of Mumbai is
not sufficient to condone the delay of more than 197 days. He has
further stated that there are many Advocates in Mumbai City to whom
the defendant No.2 can appoint as their Advocate, however the
defendant No.2 chosen to remain absent for 197 days. It appears from
reasons stated by defendant that the reason stated for delay are not
satisfactorily explaining delay of 197 days. The present matter is a
Summary Suit which has to be decided expeditiously, and defendant
has to file appearance within 10 days from receiving summons. It
appears summons was received by defendant which is a Company.
Advocate for the plaintiff has rightly argued that defendant No.2 could
have appointed other Advocate and file appearance. Hence, it appears
that the reasons stated for condoning the delay in the present case is
not satisfactory. Therefore, present application deserves to be rejected.
Hence, following order :
ORDER
Chamber Summons No. 12/2018 is rejected and disposed of.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 22.01.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 22.01.2019
Transcribed on : 22.01.2019
Signed on : 22.01.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
:4: Ch.Sum. No.12/2018 in Sum. Suit No.117/2017
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
23.01.2019 At 2:42 pm. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
22.01.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 22.01.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 23.01.2019
-- 4 of 4 --