Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No. 100655 / 2024
Suresh – Tarachand
Order (Exh.17)
1 of 4
City Civil and Sessions Court, Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Court Room No. 31 – Commercial Court
(Additional District Judge : Vijay S. Hingne, LL. M.)
MHCC010016272024
Notice of Motion Filed : 05.02.2024
Arguments Over : 02.09.2024
Decided on : 02.09.2024
Duration : 06 M, 28 Days
Exhibit No. 17
Commercial Suit No. 100068 / 2020
Notice of Motion No. 100655 / 2024
Plaintiff : Suresh Hiranand Rohra HUF.
VERSUS
Defendants 1 Tarachand Bodaram Chawla
2 Vinay Tarachand Chawla
Appearances
Plaintiff
: Adv. Shri Dushyant Lilani
Defendants
: Adv. Ms. Nilam Gupta
Notice of Motion for Condonation of Delay.
************************************************************************
ORDER
(Pronounced on this 2nd Day of September, 2024)
Defendants have preferred present Notice of Motion for
condonation of delay in filing Leave to Defend.
-- 1 of 4 --
NM No. 100655 / 2024
Suresh – Tarachand
Order (Exh.17)
2 of 4
Suit : Case of Plaintiff :
2) Suresh Rohra, Mumbai, Maharashtra, (hereinafter,
plaintiff) claimed that, he provided business loan of .	₹
27,00,000/- to Tarachand Bodaram Chawla and Vinay Tarachand
Chawla (hereinafter,
defendants).
As defendants defaulted repayment, plaintiff preferred
present Commercial Suit No. 100068 / 2020 for recovery of .	₹
31,98,960/- with interest @ 18 % p. a.
Notice of Motion No. 100655 / 2024 (Exh.17, Dt. 05.02.2024) :
3) Defendants contended that, their lawyers left proceeding
and hence defendants were required to appoint another lawyer.
Thereafter, new lawyer went on maternity leave and hence there
is delay in filing reply to Summons for Judgment. Said delay is
not intentional. Defendants are having good defense and hence
said delay be condoned.
Reply by plaintiff (Exh.19, Dt. 02.09.2024) :
4) Plaintiff opposed the Notice of Motion.
Points for determination :
5) Heard the Learned Counsels. Perused Record. Points for
determination, findings and reasons are as follows :
Points
Findings
1 Are Defendants entitled for
condonation of delay?..................... In the Affirmative.
2 What Order? …………………… As per final order.
R E A S O N S
Reasons as to Point No. 1 & No. 2 :
6) Perusal of record shows dates as follows :
Dates Events
23.01.2020 : Plaintiff filed the present Suit.
27.01.2020 : Vakilpatra (Exh.2) filed by defendant No. 1.
Vakilpatra (Exh.3) filed by defendant No. 2.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM No. 100655 / 2024
Suresh – Tarachand
Order (Exh.17)
3 of 4
18.07.2023 : Summons for Judgment filed by plaintiff.
04.08.2023 : Summons for Judgment is registered as
Summons for Judgment No. 100177 / 2023.
05.09.2023
to
January 2024
: Defendants claimed that, their counsel was on
Maternity Leave.
05.02.2024 : Notice of Motion filed by defendant for
condonation of delay.
02.09.2024 : Plaintiff filed reply to Notice of Motion.
Above chart shows that, after Suit was filed on 23.01.2020 and
Lockdown was lifted on 28.02.2022, plaintiff took almost 17
months to file Summons for Judgment.
7) Considering above aspect, it would be just, legal and
proper to permit defendants to condone the delay in filing Leave
to Defend.
8) Considering fact that, defendants caused delay in filing
reply from January 2024 to till date, then cost of .	₹ 2,000/- ( .	₹
Two Thousand Only) would be just, legal and proper. Hence, the
Points are so answered and Notice of Motion is disposed off, by
following Order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 100655 / 2024, is allowed,
subject to Cost of . 2,000/- ( . Two Thousand Only).
₹
	₹
2. Defendants shall pay said Cost to plaintiff by next date.
3. If defendants pays the Cost to plaintiff by next date,
then the delay caused to them, in filing their Leave to
Defend shall stand condoned. Then, the Leave to
Defend of defendants be taken on record, forthwith.
4. If defendants fails to pay the Cost, then Summons for
Judgment shall proceed without Leave to Defend.
5. Parties be informed about their right to challenge this
Order and period of limitation for same.
6. Proceeding of Notice of Motion No. 100655 / 2024 is
closed.
-- 3 of 4 --
NM No. 100655 / 2024
Suresh – Tarachand
Order (Exh.17)
4 of 4
7. Order dictated and pronounced in Open Court.
8. Record of Notice of Motion shall be part of Commercial
Suit No. 100068 / 2020.
Mumbai
Dated : 02.09.2024 (Vijay S. Hingne)
Additional District Judge,
Court Room No.31 - Commercial Court,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mazgaon, Greater Mumbai
Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS
-- 4 of 4 --