Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 16/01/2018 CORAM : HER HONOUR THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
MRS. P.V. GANEDIWALA
Suit 597/17 Adv. Hina Mody for plaintiff present.
@ NM 1889/17 None present for the defendant.
Plaintiff files reply to NM 1889/17.
Plaintiff files NM.
Heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
The present Notice of Motion is taken out for returning written
statement to the defendant as it was filed after 30 days without
intimation to Court of its delayed filing.
Ld. Counsel vehemently argued that vide precipe the WS was
filed beyond the period of 30 days. Ld. Counsel prays to return
the written statement. At the outset, for filing written statement
within 30 days and further within 90 days with reasons to be
recorded, is the procedural provision and is directory in nature.
There is catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court holding
that in an advercial system the defendant is to be given
opportunity to present his case. Even the written statements are
accepted beyond the period of 90 days. If the Court staff accepts
the written statement beyond the period of 30 days without
taking any application from the defendant and Court also do not
insists for any application in writing, I do not find any
miscarriage of justice is done. Written statement once accepted
cannot be returned back on the ground that he has not filed
proper application. Procedural defect will not go to the root of
the case. I do not find merit in this application. No prejudice will
be caused to the plaintiff hence Notice of motion stands rejected.
It be registered for statistical purpose.
Adjd. to 13/02/2018 for NM hearing.
Principal Judge,
Gr. Mumbai.
-- 1 of 1 --