Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 N/M No.138/2018 in Suit No.1011/2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.138 OF 2018
IN
S.C.SUIT NO. 1011 OF 2017
Sainath Builders and Developers ]
Registered Partnership firm, ]
Through its partner Abhijeet Madhukar ]
Kadam, having its office at 102, Mam ]
Trilok Building, Sane Guruji Nagar, ]
90 feet Road, Mulund East, ]
Mumbai 400 081. ].. Plaintiff.
V/s.
1 Vivek Narayanswami Naidu ]
Age 54 years, Occupation : Business ]
Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, ]
Residing at 301, Parvati Niwas ]
J.V. Scheme Road No.2, ]
Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 080. ]
2 Surendra Chandrakant Sawant, ]
Aged 54 years, Occupation: Business ]
residing at C801, Teakwood, ]
Vasant Garden, Mulund West, ]
Mumbai400080. ]
3 Sudhakar Amrut More, ]
Age 55 years, Occupation: Business, ]
Hindu, Indian Inhabitant, ]
Residing at 701, Aiditi Apartment, ]
Mithaghar Road, Mulund (East), ]
Mumbai 400 081. ]..Defendants.
Advocate Mr. Abhijeet Barve for the plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Tanna for defendant no.1.
Advocate Mr. Hemant Hasnale for defendant nos.2 and 3.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 N/M No.138/2018 in Suit No.1011/2017
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
MS. S.P. PONKSHE.
(C.R.NO.01)
DATE : 14th JUNE 2018
ORAL ORDER
This Notice of Motion has been taken out by defendant
nos.2 and 3 for condonation of delay of 153 days in filing written
statement.
2 In support of notice of motion, defendant no.3 Sudhakar
Amrut More has filed his affidavit.
3 The plaintiff has filed reply and resisted notice of motion.
Heard. It appears from an affidavit in support of notice of motion that
proposal was given by the plaintiff for settlement and the plaintiff
advised the defendants not to file written statement. But two days prior
to 14.12.2017, before arbitration hearing, the defendants came to
know that the plaintiff is not interest in settlement. Therefore,
defendant no.3 has instructed his advocate to file written statement.
4 Thus, one ground for delay in filing written statement is
settlement talks between parties to the suit. In reply, the plaintiff has
denied that he took initiative for settlement earlier. But it is not stated
by the plaintiff by filing an affidavit. In such peculiar circumstances, in
order to decide real controversial issues involved in the suit on merits,
it is just and proper to condone the delay of 153 days in the interest of
justice and to take written statement on record. But while allowing
-- 2 of 4 --
3 N/M No.138/2018 in Suit No.1011/2017
notice of motion, it is just to impose costs of Rs.1000/ payable by
defendant nos.2 and 3 to the plaintiff. With this, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
Notice of Motion No.138 of 2018 is made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (a) subject to the payment of costs of Rs.1000/
(Rupees One Thousand only) payable by defendant nos. 2 and 3 to the
plaintiff on or before next date.
2 On payment of costs, already tendered written statement
by defendant nos.2 and 3 be taken on record by giving exhibit number.
3 Notice of Motion No.138 of 2018 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(S. P. PONKSHE)
Judge,
Date: 14/06/2018. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 14/06/2018
Transcribed on : 15/06/2018
Signed on : 18/06/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
19/06/2018 At 11.45 a.m. MRS. SUPRIYA S. PAWAR
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
-- 3 of 4 --
4 N/M No.138/2018 in Suit No.1011/2017
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ MS. S. P. PONKSHE
(C.R.NO.01)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
14/06/2018
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 18/06/2018
Judgment/Order uploaded on 19/06/2018
-- 4 of 4 --