Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 144/18 SUIT 6856/97 1
CNR NO.MHCC010004872018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.144 of 2018
IN
SUIT NO.6856 of 1997
Bank of India .. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Dr.Pankaj C.Gandhi & Another ...Defendants
Defendant No.1 in person.
Advocate Archana Sanap for plaintiff.
Coram : Her Honour Judge
Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
Ad hoc Judge
C.R No. : 32
Dated : 29th August 2018
ORDER
1. Defendant No.1 taken out this motion for condonation of delay of
20 years and 189 days in filing written statement.
2. Defendant No.1 states in the motion that he, his wife and 2 minor
children were forcibly dispossessed from their residential flat No.21,
Gautam View, 5th floor, Seven Bunglows, Andheri(W), Mumbai400 053
on 13/05/1996 by one Rohit Sanghvi and his family members.
Thereafter, police complaint was filed against the said person.
Defendant No.1 also filed M.J.Petition No.B2/1996 against defendant
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 144/18 SUIT 6856/97 2
No.2 before the Family Court. Due to different court proceedings filed
by plaintiff he was unavailable in Mumbai, therefore, could not file the
written statement within time. Defendant No.1 prays that delay in
written statement be condoned 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 his written statement before
the court, but he did not take care to file his written statement within
stipulated time. The reasons assigned by the defendant No.1 for
condonation of delay of 20 years and 189 days 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.1 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.1 by
registered post acknowledgment receipt dated 27/02/1997 and
defendant No.1 appeared in person before the court on 18/09/1997.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 144/18 SUIT 6856/97 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. Registrar of this office was directed to produce the
insolvency certificate to the defendants but that was not produced by
defendants, thereafter, defendant No.1 taken out application vide Exh.7
for stay of suit but that application was rejected by order dated
9/10/2017.
8. Number of the proceedings are mentioned by defendant No.1 in
his motion also filed the compilation of document that number of
proceedings were pending in different courts and therefore, defendants
could not file his written statement within time as contended in the
written submission vide Exh.10. The reasons assigned by the defendant
No.1 for condonation of delay are not of ‘sufficient cause’ hence, in my
considered view, defendant No.1 is not entitled for condonation of
delay of 20 years and 189 days in filing written statement.
9. 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 defendant 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 of more than 20 years are not of
‘sufficient cause’ hence, in my considered view, defendant No.1 is not
entitled for condonation of delay in filing written statement.
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 144/18 SUIT 6856/97 4
10. In view of above discussion, I pass the following order.
ORDER
Notice of Motion No.144/2018 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
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
01/09/2018 at ( 2.00p.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 --