Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CH/s.IN Sum. S No.6957/05 Order 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.77 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.6957 OF 2005
Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ...Plaintiff
V/s
Venkat Krishna ...Defendant
Coram : His Honour Judge Shri M.M.UMAR
(C.R. No.28)
Dated : 22/10/2018
Adv. Ms.Pratyusha Panchagni for plaintiff.
Adv. Ms.Praseena Joseph for defendant.
ORDER BELOW CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.77/18
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendant for
condoning the delay in filing the reply to the Summons for Judgment
No.253/17, filed by the plaintiff, after giving the appearance by the
defendant in the suit, on service of writ of summons upon him.
2 The plaintiff has resisted the Chamber Summons by filing
reply affidavit on record.
3. Heard. The learned advocate for the defendant has
submitted that the defendant finalized the affidavit in reply and sent
the affidavit in reply to his advocate on 9/11/2017 as the matter was
-- 1 of 3 --
CH/s.IN Sum. S No.6957/05 Order 2
listed on 10/11/2017 and it was within the period of limitation. It is
contended that the advocate for defendant chosen to tender affidavit
in reply on 10/11/2017, on that day the Court was on leave and the
matter was adjourned to 23/11/2017. It is submitted that on that day
court informed to the advocate for defendant to file an application for
condoning the delay. Consequently, the present Chamber Summons is
taken out. It is submitted that the delay caused in filing the reply to
the Summons for Judgment is not intentional or deliberate. It is
submitted that defendant has good case on merit and if the delay is
not condoned, serious prejudice would cause to him.
4. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for plaintiff has
submitted that there is no sufficient ground for condoning the delay.
It is submitted that the defendant has purposely not filed the reply to
the Summons for Judgment within 10 days after its service upon the
defendant. Lastly, it is requested to reject the Chamber summons.
5. I have duly considered the above submissions of both the sides
so also, I have gone carefully through the case record. There is no dispute
that some delay is occurred in filing the reply to the Summons for
Judgment by the defendant. It seems that the delay is caused in filing
the reply to the Summons for Judgment due to fault of advocate for
defendant for which the defendant cannot be held responsible. It
appears that the delay is not intentional or malafide, rather it is a
bonafide and genuine one. In view of the matter, in my opinion, the
-- 2 of 3 --
CH/s.IN Sum. S No.6957/05 Order 3
interest of justice requires to make the Chamber Summons absolute.
In the result, following order:
ORDER
1. Chamber summons no.77/18 is allowed.
2. The delay caused in filing the reply to the Summons for
Judgment No.253/17 is hereby condoned subject to the costs of
Rs.1000/ payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs on or before next
date without fail.
3. The defendant is directed to file his reply to the Summons for
Judgment, on or before next date.
4. Payment of costs is a condition precedent.
5. Chamber Summons no.77/18 is disposed of accordingly.
(M.M.UMAR)
Judge,
22/10/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Date of Dictation : 22/10/18.
Date of Transcription : 22/10/18.
Date of signature : 24/10/18
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
24/10/18 5.30p.m. Mrs.Jyoti R.Mane
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.M.Umar(CR No.28)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
22/10/18
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 24/10/18
Judgment/order uploaded on 24/10/18
-- 3 of 3 --