Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: N.M. No.63/2019 in Summary Suit No.889/2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOITON NO. 63 OF 2019
CNR NO.: MHCC010001712019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 889 OF 2017
M/s. Indian Cab Corporation ]...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Raman Electricals ]...Defendant
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Heeralal Chaturvedi for the plaintiff.
Advocate Shyamli Hajela for the defendant.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.28)
DATED : 22nd MARCH, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant has stated that the plaintiff served only the copy of
Plaint without the annexture to the Plaint, hence on 05.06.2018, his
Advocate brought this issue before the Court and the Court directed to
plaintiff to serve the annexture annexed to the Plaint to the defendant.
Defendant has further stated that on 28.06.2018, plaintiff served upon
his Advocate, the copy of Summons for Judgment alongwith
compilation of documents annexed to the plaint. Defendant has stated
that the transactions are pertaining from the year 2008 onwards hence
it took some time to refer with and tally the same with the defendant's
record. Hence, it became impossible for him to give reply within the
-- 1 of 4 --
:2: N.M. No.63/2019 in Summary Suit No.889/2017
stipulated time. Defendant has further stated that the delay caused was
unintentional and defendant prayed to condone delay of 60 days.
2. Plaintiff has filed reply to this Notice of Motion and denied that
only Plaint was served upon defendant and not annexture with the Writ
of Summons. Plaintiff has stated that on 25.01.2019, Summons for
Judgment was served upon defendant, hence there is delay of 200 days
in filing leave to defend and defendant prayed to condone delay of 60
days. Plaintiff has further stated that Notice of Motion is liable to be
dismissed.
3. It appears defendant has appeared in the matter on 27.09.2017.
According to defendant he was served with the Plaint without Writ of
Summons was served upon him. Therefore, it appears defendant had
idea about the allegations in the plaint since his appearance. It appears
as per Roznama that plaintiff filed registered Summons for Judgment
on 17.12.2018 before the Court and defendant has filed the present
Notice of Motion on 25.01.2019. Perusing such record, it appears there
is delay of not more than 2 months as the period between 17.12.2018
to 25.01.2019 is not of 200 days as stated by plaintiff.
4. Defendant has stated that the transaction is pertaining from the
year 2008 hence it took time to prepare reply. Considering such reason
and that the delay is of 60 days, it appears delay is not intentional. At
the same time, for such delay caused for inability of defendant to
prepare reply, plaintiff should not suffer. Hence, Notice of Motion is
required to be allowed subject to cost. Hence, following order:
-- 2 of 4 --
:3: N.M. No.63/2019 in Summary Suit No.889/2017
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.63/2019 is allowed subject to cost of
Rs.1,000/ to be given by defendant to plaintiff.
2. Notice of Motion No.63/2019 stands disposed of.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 22.03.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 22.03.2019
Transcribed on : 22.03.2019
Signed on : 22.03.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
:4: N.M. No.63/2019 in Summary Suit No.889/2017
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
26.03.2019 At 4:06 p.m. 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.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
22.03.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 22.03.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 26.03.2019
-- 4 of 4 --