Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.85-2019 in SU 770-2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.85 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO.770 OF 2017
CNR NO.: MHCC01-000213-2019
M/s. Fovkar & Co. … Plaintiff
Vs.
Executive Enginer, Presidency Division,
Mumbai, PWD & Ors.
… Defendants
Appearances:
Ld. Adv Pramajit Singh for the plaintiff.
Ld. Adv Kudalkar for the defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R. S. PAVASKAR
(C.R.NO.12)
DATE : 10th MARCH 2021
ORAL ORDER
The defendants have taken out this notice of motion under
Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (in short ‘CPC’) for the condonation of the delay in filing a
written statement.
2. Heard the learned AGP for the defendants and the learned
Advocate for the plaintiff. Perused the record.
Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
NM No.85-2019 in SU 770-2017
3. Admittedly, defendants were served with summons on
30.03.2017. So, as per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC,
defendants ought to have filed a written statement within 30 days from
30.03.2017. However, they have failed to file a written statement
within the time stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC. Therefore,
as per the order dated 10.01.2018, the suit was ordered to be
proceeded without a written statement against them. They have filed
the present notice of motion on 03.01.2019.
4. From the affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion,
it appears that after the receipt of the letter of request, it was forwarded
to the Building Branch, Desk-8 at the Head Office along with the
papers. However, the documents related to the present matter were
being inspected by the Superintended Engineer, Vigilance Department.
Resultantly, the concerned Department could not give instructions to the
Law Officer in time, and therefore, there was a delay in filing a written
statement.
5. Considering the above facts and in order to give an
opportunity to the defendants to put forth their defence, to my mind, it
is expedient in the interest of justice to allow them to file a written
statement by condoning the delay. At the same time, it is necessary to
impose costs on them for the delay in filing a written statement. So, I
hold that the notice of motion deserves to be allowed in terms of the
prayer clause (a) subject to costs of Rs.500/-. Hence, the order:
Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
NM No.85-2019 in SU 770-2017
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.85 of 2019 is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a) subject to costs of Rs.500/-
which shall be paid to the plaintiff.
2. Notice of Motion No.85 of 2019 is accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
R. S. PAVASKAR
Judge,
Date : 10/03/2021 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 10/03/2021
Transcribed on : 10/03/2021
HHJ signed on : 10/03/2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
11.03.2021 2.57 p.m. ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Shri. R.S. PAVASKAR (CR 12)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
10.03.2021
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
10.03.2021
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
11.03.2021
Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --