Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CH.S.160/2018 SUIT 1648/2015 1
CNR.NO.MHCC010012902018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.160 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.1648 OF 2015
P.D.Warehousing Corporation .. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Bharat Satra ...Defendant
Advocate Smt.Sharmila Deshmukh for Plaintiff.
Advocate Smt.Savita Sawarkar for Defendant.
Coram : Her Honour Judge
Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
Ad hoc Asstt.Judge
CR no. : 32
Dated :3rd May,2018
ORDER
1. Plaintiff has taken out this chamber summons for condonation of delay
of 837 days in filing the written statement.
2. Defendant has filed his written statement on 04/09/2015 in t he suit
and pleaded set off of Rs.9,33,848/ in the said written statement. Plaintiff
wants to file his reply to the set off pleaded by defendant. Matter was fixed
for reply on 17/03/2016 thereafter adjourned on 07/07/2016 but court was
vacant till 05/04/2016 therefore, matter was adjourned on the subsequent
dates. In October,2017 plaintiff discharged his previous advocate and engaged
the present advocate, filed his appearance on 10/10/2017. That time, he
came to know that no reply has been filed on set off, the delay is not
-- 1 of 3 --
CH.S.160/2018 SUIT 1648/2015 2
intentional but on account of the circumstances stated above, hence, delay be
condoned.
3. Defendant filed the reply .There is gross delay on the part of defendant
for not filing reply to the counter claim 'no sufficient' ground has been given
by defendant for condonation of delay. Other partners of the defendant could
have given instruction to file written statement ion the counter claim.
However, defendant chosen not to file their written statement. Hence, no
written statement order be filed against defendant on 07/07/2016. Reasons
assigned for condonation of delay are not satisfactory. Hence, chamber
summons be dismissed with costs.
4. Heard learned advocate Smt.Sharmila Deshmukh for Plaintiff and
advocate Smt.Savita Sawarkar for Defendant.
5. The suit is for recovery of money and the defendant claims set off
against the plaintiff’s demand. Plaintiff may present written statement
containing he particulars of the debt sought to be set off. The written
statement shall have the same effect as a plaint in a cross suit, so as to unable
the court to pronounce a final judgment in respect of both the original claim
and of the set off. The rules relating to written statement by a defendant
applied to written statement in answer to a claim of set off.
6. The purpose of providing a time schedule for filing written statement
under Order 8 Rule 1 is to expedite and not scuttle the hearing. The
provisions spells a disability on the defendant. It does not impose on embargo
on power of court to extend the time. The provision being in the domain of
procedural law it has to be held directory and not mandatory.
7. Considering the reason assigned for condonation of delay are found to
be ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the written statement within time, hence,
-- 2 of 3 --
CH.S.160/2018 SUIT 1648/2015 3
delay is required to be condoned. If the delay in condoned by imposing cost of
Rs.2000/ be paid to the original defendant then that will be justifiable,
hence, proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1.Chamber Summons No.160/2018 is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause subject to cost of Rs.2000/ be paid to the original defendant.
2. After compliance written statement on the counter claim be taken on
record.
Date : 03/05/2018 (Pushpa N. Rao)
Ad hoc Asstt.Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Greater Mumbai
Dictation Direct typed on computer: 03/05/2018
Signed by HHJ on : 03/05/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
04/05/2018 at (2.22p.m.) Mrs. J.V.Pawar
Name of the Judge (With Court room
No.)
HHJ Smt.Pushpa N Rao
C.R.No.32
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
03/05/2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.on 03/05/2018
JUDGMENT/ ORDER uploaded on 04/05/2018
.
-- 3 of 3 --