Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Nm 263/18
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
Notice of Motion No. 263 of 2018
In
S.C.SUIT NO. 919 OF 2017
Balasaheb Bapu Khot ...Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. The Chief Officer (R.T.)
Mumbai Building Repairs and
Reconstruction Board, A Division
of MHADA & Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearances: Ld. Adv. Ms. Harashada Kamble for the plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mr. Mehul Ratalkar for deft. No. 7
Coram : D.K. Gudadhe, Adhoc Judge.
(C.R.No. 12)
Dated: 26th October, 2018
Order
1. This notice of motion is taken out by the defendant No. 7
for permitting him to file written statement by condoning delay.
2. It is the contention of the defendant No. 7 that he came to
be served on 13.4.2015 and thereby he was supposed to file written
statement within 120 days. However, since, he was required to go to
his native, he could not file written statement within prescribe period
and as such, there is 52 days delay in filing written statement. Hence,
same may be condoned and written statement be accepted.
3. The plaintiff opposed the application on a ground that
there is a delay of 210 days and defendant has not explained why the
delay is caused therefore, there is no substance in the Notice of Motion
and therefore, same be rejected.
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Nm 263/18
4. On perusal of the pleadings of the defendant, it is seen that,
since defendant went to his native place there was delay in filing
written statement. However, it is pertinent to note here that no reason
has been cited what compels the defendant to go to his native place
without filing written statement. Therefore, I find less substance in the
contention of the defendant. Furthermore, defendant contended that
there is delay of 52 days only in filing written statement. However,
OrderVIII says that written statement is require to be filed within 30
days from the date of the service of the summons and the court may at
its discretion extend such time up to 90 days. In view of this provision,
even defendant’s contention about 52 days of delay is also not
acceptable. So, it clearly seen that the defendant has taken court
process for granted. However, it is settled principle of law that all the
matters require to be disposed of on merit and therefore, in my opinion,
one indulgence need to be granted. No doubt because of this, the
plaintiff may suffer inconvenience but such inconvenience can very well
be compensated in terms of money. In view of this, I proceed to pass
order in following terms.
Order
1. Notice of motion is allowed.
2. Defendant No. 7 is permitted to file written statement by
condoning delay subject to cost of Rs.1000/.
3. Accordingly, Notice of Motion is disposed of.
(D.K. Gudadhe)
Adhoc Judge,
26.10.2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 26.10.2018
Transcribed on : 30.10.2018
Signed on : 30.10.2018
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Nm 263/18
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE & TIME : 30.10.2018 5.40 P.M.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : S.S.BATHE
Name of Judge (with Court Room No.) Shri D.K. Gudadhe
(C.R.No.12)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT /ORDER
26.10.2018
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 30.10.2018
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded on 30.10.2018
-- 3 of 3 --