Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1424 OF 2022
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 499 OF 2020
Ashish Shrikant Naik …. Plaintiff.
V/s.
The Commissioner
Mumbai Corporation of
Greater Mumbai and Ors. ....Defendants.
Appearances :
Adv. Prasad Narkar h/f Adv. S.S. Redekar for plaintiff
Adv. Bibhishan Sutar for defendant/BMC.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. V. S. KHOT
(C.R.NO.06)
DATE : 28th February, 2025.
ORAL ORDER
1. This notice of motion is taken by the defendant nos.2 and 3
for setting aside the No WS order, condoning the delay in filing written
statement and allowing them to file the written statement on record.
2. The defendants contended that they could not file the
written statement within time. The defendants have assigned the reason
of ailments i.e. fracture injury and Covid Pandamic. It is contended that
there was a serious injury to the defendant No.2. His jaw was fractured.
He was unable to speak. He was at his village during Covid Pandemic
time. The defendant No.2 therefore, could not file the written
statement. The defendants submitted that now, they are ready to file the
-- 1 of 4 --
2
written statement and same may be taken on record by condoning the
delay and by setting aside the no WS order.
3. Say of the other side came to be invited. The plaintiff
submitted that the notice of motion is baseless and influenced by the
fraud. The notice of motion is untenable and liable to be rejected.
4. The notice of motion, say, contentions and counter
contentions make it clear that the defendant Nos.2 and 3 failed to file
the written statement within time. The defendants have assigned the
reason of ailment. It is contended that the defendant No.2 was suffering
from the injury on jaw and he was unable to speak. The reason of Covid
pandemic is also mentioned in the notice of motion. The reasons shown
by the defendants is plausible, but there is no medical certificate in
support of the fracture injury. The defendants are now ready to file the
written statement and they are required to be allowed to file the same
in the interest of justice. The litigation is required to be decided on
merits and for that the written statement of the defendants should be
on record. If the defendants are allowed to file the written statement
then no prejudiced would be occasioned to the plaintiff. On the
contrary, the court would have the opportunity to decide the litigation
on merits. It is true that there is some delay caused to the plaintiff but
the delay can be compensated in terms of costs. I find no hurdle in
allowing the defendants to contest the litigation by filing the written
statement. Hence, I am of the view of that the notice of motion should
be allowed subject to costs. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following
order.
-- 2 of 4 --
3
ORDER
1. The Notice of motion No.1424 of 2022 stands allowed and is
hereby made absolute.
2. The No WS order is hereby set aside and the delay in filing the
written statement stands condoned.
3. The Written Statement filed by the defendants be taken on
record.
4. The defendants to pay the costs of Rs.2000/- to the plaintiff
and the payment of costs would be the condition precedent for
taking the Written Statement on record.
4. The Notice of Motion No.1424 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(V. S. KHOT)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 28.02.2025 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 28.02.2025
Transcribed on : 01.03.2025
Signed on :
-- 3 of 4 --
4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
06/03/2025 at 12.05 p.m. Mayuresh P. Tathe
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ SHRI. V. S. KHOT
(C.R.NO.06)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
28.02.2025
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 05.03.2025
Judgment/Order uploaded on 06.03.2025
-- 4 of 4 --