Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010004562020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 170 OF 2020
IN
SC SUIT NO.1943 OF 2019
(C.N.R.No.MHCC01-000456-2020)
Shri. Sudhakar Prabhakar Singh & Ors. ] …. Plaintiffs.
V/s.
The Chief Officer.
Mumbai Building Repairs and
Reconstruction Board and Ors. ] ..Defendants.
Appearance :
Learned Adv. Mr. Padwal for plaintiff.
Learned Adv. Darpan Jain for defendant No.3.
Learned Adv. Rahul Rathod for defendant/BMC.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. V. S. KHOT
(C.R.NO.09)
DATE : 24th JULY, 2024
ORAL ORDER
1. This notice of motion has taken out by defendant No.3 for
condoning the delay of 100 days for filing written statement.
2. The defendant No.3 contended that plaintiff has filed the
present case against the defendants for various reliefs, but the plaintiff
-- 1 of 4 --
2
is not entitled to anyone. The defendant No.3 received the writ of
summons on 27.08.2019. He was not able to file written statement
within 30 days. The defendant No.3 is one firm and the employees of
defendant No.3 were not available in Mumbai during the said period.
Therefore, the written statement could not be filed within time. The
delay was unintentional and beyond the control of defendant No.3. The
delay is not more and it is of 100 days. The delay may be condoned
and defendant No.3 may be allowed to file the written statement. The
defendant No.3 prays for the same.
3. The say of the other side came to be invited. The other side
opposed the application/notice of motion and submitted that there is no
proper reason. The suit was filed in the year 2019. The defendant No.3
has not explained the delay. The notice of motion taken by the
defendant No.3 be dismissed with the heavy costs.
4. The documents and facts of the case shows that the
defendant No.3 failed to file the written statement within stipulated
period of 90 days and there is 100 days delay. The delay of 100 days is
not more. It is the civil law that each and every party/litigant is
required to be heard otherwise there would be inchoate adjudication. If
the application/notice of motion is allowed, then no prejudice would be
occasioned to plaintiff. On the contrary, if the notice of motion is
allowed then it will be easy for the Court to proceed with the litigation
on merits. The written statement should be on record for complete
adjudication of dispute. There is some delay to the plaintiff’s side for
which the plaintiff side is entitled for costs. The delay can be
compensated in terms of costs and costs are specific answer to delay.
Having regard to the circumstances of the case and delay of 100 days, I
-- 2 of 4 --
3
am of the view that costs of Rs.1,000/- would be just sufficient. In view
of above said reasons, I am inclined to pass following order :
O R D E R
1. Notice of Motion No. 170 of 2020 in Suit No.1943
of 2019 is hereby allowed.
2. The written statement filed by defendant No.3 be
taken on record on payment of costs and payment of
cost would be condition precedent for taking the
written statement on record.
3. Parties are directed to proceed without taking
adjournments.
4. Notice of Motion stands disposed off accordingly.
(V. S. KHOT)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 24.07.2024 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 24.07.2024
Transcribed on : 26.07.2024
Signed on : 01.08.2024
-- 3 of 4 --
4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
01/08/2024 At 12.05 P.M. Mrs. Shravanti Karre
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ SHRI. V. S. KHOT
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
24.07.2024
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 01.08.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on 01.08.2024
-- 4 of 4 --