Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 845/21 in Comm. Suit No. 834/21. 1 Order.
MHCC010027272021
Presented on : 19-03-2021
Registered on : 19-03-2021
Decided on : 14-02-2022
Duration : 0 years, 10 months, 26 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 845 OF 2021
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 834 OF 2021
Anand Umakant Shethna ...Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Mangamma Shankaraiah Girgani and one ...Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI R.R.BHAGWAT.
(COURT ROOM NO.31).
DATE : 14th FEBRUARY, 2022.
Shri Swapnil Waradkar, Advocate for the defendants.
Ms. Shrutika Lakhankar, Advocate for the plaintiff.
ORDER
1. The defendants have filed present notice of motion for
allowing them to file vakalatnama of their advocate on record and to
appear in the matter by condoning delay of 25 days. Perused notice of
motion and affidavit in reply. I have gone through the suit proceeding.
Heard learned counsel Shri Swapnil Waradkar for the defendants and
learned counsel Ms. Shrutika Lakhankar h/f Adv. Bharat Joshi for the
plaintiff.
-- 1 of 3 --
N/m No. 845/21 in Comm. Suit No. 834/21. 2 Order.
2. On perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiff had
filed Summary Suit No. 154/2020. Suit summons as per Order XXXVII
Rule 2(2) of the CPC was issued. Though the plaintiff has not filed
affidavit of service on record, the defendants have stated in para 3 of
their affidavit in support that they were served with the summonses on
15/02/2020. The defendants should have appeared in the matter
within period of ten days from the date of service as per Order XXXVII
Rule 3(1) of the CPC i.e. on or before 25/02/2020. It is contention of
the defendants that summons was served upon the defendants at the
official address of defendant no.2 and it resulted in quarrels between
defendants no.1 and 2. Ultimately, notice of motion was prepared and
notarized on 19/03/2020 and filed in the Court on 01/04/2020. It
resulted into delay of 25 days. Learned counsel Shri Swapnil Waradkar
submitted that restrictions were imposed due to Covid19 pandemic
from 15/03/2020 and therefore, delay is caused in filing the notice of
motion. On the contrary, learned counsel Shrutika Lakhankar
submitted that though restrictions due to Covid19 pandemic were in
operation, entry of the litigants in the court premises was not restricted.
She further submitted that notice of motion may be rejected.
3. In the light of above factual aspect and rival contentions,
delay in appearance of the defendants before the court and in filing
vakalatnama is liable to be condoned by exercising discretionary power
under Order XXXVII Rule 3(7) of the CPC. The delay is not intentional.
Attending circumstances show that the defendants were willing to
appear and contest the case. Reasonable amount of costs is liable to be
imposed on the defendants to redress the grievance of the plaintiff.
Hence, I pass the following order :
-- 2 of 3 --
N/m No. 845/21 in Comm. Suit No. 834/21. 3 Order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 845/2021 is made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (a) subject to cost of Rs.3,000/ payable to
the plaintiff or learned advocate representing him on or
before the next date of hearing.
2. Vakalatnama filed by Adv. Swapnil Waradkar for
defendants no.1 and 2 be exhibited on payment of costs as
above.
3. The proceeding of N/m No. 845/2021 is closed.
(R.R.BHAGWAT)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 14/02/2022. Mumbai.
1. Dictated online on : 14/02/2022.
2. Signed on : 14/02/2022.
3. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
14/02/2022. 4.28 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri R.R.Bhagwat.
(Court Room No.31).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 14/02/2022.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 14/02/2022.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 14/02/2022.
-- 3 of 3 --