Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 143/2018 SUIT NO.6856/1997 1
CNR NO.MHCC01 0004862018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.143 of 2018
IN
SUIT NO.6856 of 1997
Bank of India .. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Dr.Pankaj C.Gandhi & Anr. ...Defendants
Defendant No.2 in person.
Smt.Archana Sanap advocate for plaintiff.
Coram : Her Honour Judge
Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
Ad hoc Judge
CR No. : 32
Dated : 29th August 2018
ORDER
1. Defendant No.2 taken out this motion for condonation of delay of
20 years and 189 days in filing written statement.
2. Defendant No.2 states in the motion that in 1995 defendant
No.12used to indulge in speculative share transaction in stock market
without his consent and deserted her by him and therefore, defendant
No.2 along with her 2 minor children started residing elsewhere due to
matrimonial discord, therefore, copy of the summons was not served on
her. Defendant No.2 had incurred huge financial losses. His alleged
creditors used to threatened him and also forcibly dispossessed the
defendant and minor children. On 13/05/1996 they were illegally
dispossessed by Rohit Sanghvi hence, FIR was filed at D.N.Nagar Police
station. Rohit Sanghvi also filed S.C.Suit No.2974/1996 against the
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 143/2018 SUIT NO.6856/1997 2
defendants. Due to the proceedings between defendant and Shri.Rohit
Sanghvi, could not file the written statement, hence, delay has been
caused, delay be condoned for the interest of justice and motion be
made absolute.
3. Plaintiff filed the reply. Plaintiff have filed the suit against the
defendants for recovery of outstanding dues under the Overdraft facility
against pledge of equity share as a collateral security. Defendant is
appearing before the court from time to time. Inspite of the
adjournment were granted to him to file her written statement before
the court but she did not take care to file his written statement within
stipulated time. The reasons assigned by the defendant No.2 for
condonation of delay are not of ‘sufficient cause’. Motion is nothing but
taken out only with intention to protract the matter, hence, motion be
dismissed with costs.
4. Heard defendant No.2 in person and advocate Smt.Archana
Sanap for plaintiff.
5. Suit is for recovery of Rs.3,87,204/ with interest against
defendant No.1 and 2 and also for declaration that defendants validly
pledged 1000 shares of Alpic Finance Company Ltd. and 100 shares of
Essar Shipping Limited to secure as due repayment of the loan amount
necessary documents in favour of the bank.
6. Writ of summons was duly served on the defendant No.2 by
registered post acknowledgment receipt dated 23/06/1997 and
defendant No.1 appeared in person before the court on 18/09/1997.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 143/2018 SUIT NO.6856/1997 3
7. Plaintiff has filed the affidavit of Shri.Gangadhar Shethi on
15/3/2014. It appears from the roznama that both the defendants had
applied for legal aid. Number of the proceedings are mentioned by
defendant No.1 in her motion also filed the compilation of document
that number of proceedings were pending in different courts and
therefore, defendants could not file her written statement within time
as contended in the written submission vide Exh.11.
8. After perusal of the roznama, it appears that defendant No.1 and
2 remained present before the court on every date but they did not feel
necessary to file their written statement towards their defence before
the court. Now the matter is for cross examination by defendant as the
plaintiff has already filed affidavit of evidence on record. The conduct of
the defendants is clearly shows to protract the matter with intent to
avoid the payment of the amount of overdraft facility they had availed
from the bank in the year 1996. The reasons assigned by the defendant
No.1 for condonation of delay are not of ‘sufficient cause’ hence, in my
considered view, defendant No.2 is not entitled for condonation of
delay of 20 years and 189 days in filing written statement.
9. In view of above discussion, I pass the following order.
ORDER
Notice of Motion No.143/2018 is dismissed with costs.
Date : 29/08/2018 (Pushpa N. Rao)
Ad hoc Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Greater Mumbai
Direct typed on computer: 29/08/2018
Signed by HHJ on :29/08/2018
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 143/2018 SUIT NO.6856/1997 4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
01/09/2018 at ( .5.30p.m) Mrs. J.V.Pawar
Name of the Judge (With Court room No.) HHJ Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
(Court Room no.32)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ORDER 29/08/2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.on 29/08/2018
JUDGMENT/ ORDER uploaded on 01/09/2018
.
-- 4 of 4 --