Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM 486/20(Suit-2698/14)
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.486/2020
(CNR NO.MHCC010012412020)
IN
S. C. SUIT NO.2698/2014
Mr. Ramanuj Rajaram Yadav ..Applicant/
Defendant no.1
In the matter of :
Mrs. Amravati Bhimsen Yadav ..Plaintiff.
V/s.
1. Mr. Ramanuj Rajaram Yadav
2. Mr. Ramawadh Rajaram Yadav.
3. Mrs. Prabhavati Lalta Yadav
4. Mrs. Subhavati Teerath Yadav. .. Defendants.
Appearances :
Adv. Sanjay Yadav for plaintiff.
Adv. Sachin Pinjari for defendant no.1.
Coram : His Honour Judge
Shri. A.H.Laddhad
CR No. : 03.
Date : 12.1.2022.
ORDER
1. The defendant no.1 filed instant notice of motion for
condonation of 1440 days delay in filing W.S. and to set aside "no WS"
order dated 7.3.2016.
2. It is contention of the defendant no.1 that, parties were
negotiating to settle the matter and therefore, he has not filed Written
Statement on record. It is submitted by the defendant that, on 4th July
2019, the parties were referred for mediation, however the mediation
was failed. He was very much hopeful that the matter will be settled in
the mediation.
3. It is further contended that, since year 2013, the defendant
was suffering from hot flashes disease which involves sensation of heat
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 486/20(Suit-2698/14)
on partial portion of the body and therefore, doctor prescribed him to
avoid sun light on he skin. It is further contended that, in the year
2014, his wife Sumitra R. Yadav was suffering from Sciatica and was on
medication.
4. The defendant no.1 further contended that, in the year
2017, his son met with an accident and he was bedridden for around
one month. It is contended that, he is working in a company at
Bhandup wherein he do not get much leave. He was also hopeful for the
negotiation. Therefore, due to aforesaid reasons, the delay has been
caused in filing W.S.
5. It is contended that, he had no deliberate intention to cause
delay in the matter. He has shown sufficient and reasonable reasons to
condone the delay. In the event, if the delay is not condoned, he will
loss an opportunity to contest the suit on merit. Therefore, the
defendant no.1 prayed for allowing the present Motion.
6. The Motion is opposed by the plaintiffs by filing say. It is
contention of the plaintiff that, the defendant since beginning is
appearing in the matter and writ of summons were served upon him on
23.12.2014. The plaintiff denied that, there was negotiations going on
between the parties. The plaintiff contended that, she has filed suit for
partition of suit property, in which she is coowner and the defendant
has no defence at all, therefore the defendants, in order to delay the
matter, purposefully did not file their W.S. Hence, plaintiff prayed for
dismissal of the Motion.
7. Heard both sides. Perused Motion, reply and written
submissions filed by the defendant. It is not in dispute that, the
defendant was served on 23.12.2014 with writ of summons. It also
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 486/20(Suit-2698/14)
appears that, the defendant no.1 initially appeared through his
advocate. However, as the plaintiff failed to serve defendant nos.2 and
3, suit is dismissed against them. The defendant no.1 is the only
contesting defendant. The plaintiff filed present suit for partition.
Therefore, I find that it is desirable to dispose of the suit on merit.
There is no doubt that, there is inordinate delay. However, during
course of arguments, Ld Advocate for plaintiff fairly conceded that, in
the event, court comes to the conclusion to condone the delay, same
can be condoned by awarding costs. Therefore, looking to the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, the defendant no.1 can
be allowed to file W.S. on payment of reasonable costs. Thus, I proceed
to pass following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.486 of 2020 is hereby allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a) to (c) upon payment of costs of Rs.5,000/ to
the plaintiff.
2. Upon payment of aforesaid cost, the Written Statement of
defendant no.1 be taken on record.
3. Costs in cause.
4. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly.
(A.H.Laddhad)
Judge,
Dated : 12.1.2022 City Civil and Sessions Court,
Dictated on :11.1.2022 (through audio Greater Bombay (CR 03)
record).
Typed on : 17.1.2022
Draft given to HHJ o : 17.1.2022
Signed on : 19.1.2022
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 486/20(Suit-2698/14)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Date 19.1.22/ 30.3.22, at 4.20 pm . (Nitin V. Ubale)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Selection Gr. Stenographer(Gr.1)
Name of the Judge (With Court room no.) Shri A.H.LADDHAD
(C.R. No.3)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ ORDER 11.1.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 19.1.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 19.1.2022
As per oral directions, reuploaded again on
30.4.2022 only by changing date the order.
-- 4 of 4 --