Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010010992020
CNR NO. MHCC010010992020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.430 OF 2020
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.1120 OF 2017
Mr. Rajesh Hanumanta Kunchikurve .. Applicant
(Orig. Defendant)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Mrs. Sunita Anand Shinde … Plaintiff
V/s.
Mr. Rajesh Hanumanta Kunchikurve …Defendant
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Rajesh Patil for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. G. C. Vishwakarma for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 21st MARCH, 2022
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM No.430/21 in
Sum.Suit. 1120/17
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant
for condonation of delay in filing application for leave to defend. It was
submitted that, defendant was served with writ of summons and he
appeared. Due to death cermoney of his nephew, he could not instruct
his advocate. Therafter there were holidays and thus the defendant
could not contact his advocate and therefore there was delay of 576
days. After taking instructions the Advocate for defendant filed the
present Notice of Motion. There was delay of 576 days. However the
delay was not intentional on the part of defendant and therefore, the
delay be condoned.
2. The plaintiff filed say on motion itself and denied the
contention of defendant. It was submitted that the delay is not
explained properly and the defendant deliberately filed the present
Notice of Motion only to delay the proceeding and therefore, the Notice
of Motion be dismissed.
3. Heard Learned Advocates for both the sides. The contents
are not reproduced. Admittedly there is delay in filing the Application
for leave to defend in the present matter. The reason of delay cited by
defendant appears to be genuine and reasonable. The delay whichever
caused does not appear to be deliberate and intentional. The defendant
wants to make appearance to defend the matter. It therefore seems that
in order to decide the real controversy between the parties it would be
necessary to allow the defendants to file applicaotion for leave to
defend. If the delay is not condoned, the defendant will suffer serious
prejudice, whereas no such harm would be caused to the plaintiff.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM No.430/21 in
Sum.Suit. 1120/17
Considering the nature of the suit an opportunity must be given to the
defendant to file an application for leave to defend and proceed with
the matter. The delay being properly explained, there appears to have
been sufficient cause and therefore, the delay is condoned. I, therefore,
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.430 of 2020 is allowed.
2. The delay in filing Application for leave to defend is condoned.
3. Parties to bear their own costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 21032022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
direct Typed on : 21032022
checked on : 21032022
Signed on : 21032022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM No.430/21 in
Sum.Suit. 1120/17
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
21.03.2022 at 05.10 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (YATISH R. JAGDALE)
NAME OF TYPIST
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order 21.03.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 21.03.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 21.03.2022
-- 4 of 4 --