Date: 06-02-2020
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 01-04-2020
Date: 01-04-2020
Reason For Adjournment: National Lock Down
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2020
Date: 16-04-2020
Business: As per office order no.77/2020 dated 43.5.2020 and due to lock-down, matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2020
Date: 05-05-2020
Business: As per office order no.77/2020 dated 04.05.2020 and due to lock-down, matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2020
Date: 27-05-2020
Business: In view of Lockdown period pursuant to the declaration of Novel Corona Virus (Covid-19) as global pademic by WHO and as per Office Order 78 of 2020, matter adjourned
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2020
Date: 12-06-2020
Business: In view of declaration of Novel Corona Virus (COVID 19 as Global Pandemic by WHO and Office Order No.83/2020, matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2020
Date: 08-09-2020
Business: In view of declaration of Novel Corona Virus (COVID 19) as Global Pandemic by WHO and Office Orders, matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2020
Date: 26-11-2020
Business: Due to Covid-19, the matter is adjourned
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2021
Date: 12-02-2021
Business: Adv. Vaibhav Garkade along with Adv. Jadhav for plaintiff present.
Adv. Singha for deft. no.2 present.
Affidavit of service tendered by counsel for plaintiff. T.O.R.
It appears that paper publication was made for service for writ of summons to deft. no.3. The said publication shows the next date of appearance as 01.04.2020 but during that time, the functioning of the Courts were not regular due to lock-down. Hence, plaintiff to serve the writ of summons again to the deft. no.3 pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2020.
Draft Ch/sum tendered by counsel for plaintiff. Leave is granted to register.
Reply to N/M No.537/20 is filed by Adv. for plaintiff. T.O.R.
The matter is adjd for steps and N/M hearing to 08.03.2021.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 08-03-2021
Date: 08-03-2021
Business: Adv. Jadhav for plaintiff present.
Adv. Singha for deft. no.2 present.
Adv. Bharti for proposed deft. in Ch/sum no.335/21 present.
Vakalatnama filed by counsel for proposed deft. T.O.R.
O. - Seen and filed.
Ld. counsel for plaintiff tendered registered Ch/sum no.335/21. T.O.R.
Ld. counsel for deft. no.2 filed rejoinder in reply to N/M No.537/20. T.O.R.
ORDER IN N/M NO.537/20
Heard. By this N/M, deft. no.2 seeks permission to file written statement by condoning the delay of 1912 days in filing written statement. It is contended by deft. no.2 that writ of summons was served upon to deft. no.1 on 19.08.2014. This deft. approached Adv. Mahesh Ayare and he filed vakalatnama and sought time to file written statement and reply to N/M no.3345/2014. Reply to said N/M was filed on 21.08.2014. Further contention of this deft. is that he was under the impression that the written statement is filed on the record. Adv. for deft. no.2 would further submit that under such bonafide belief and due to inadvertence, written statement is not filed on record.
N/M is opposed by plaintiff on count that on various dates, the deft. no.2 appeared and the roznama stands testimony to said fact. The deft. no.2 has put up a false story for condoning the delay and hence, N/M be rejected.
On perusal of record, it appears that the counsel for deft. no.2 appeared in the matter on various dates. Even the reply to N/M is also filed. The ground put-forth by deft. no.2 that he was under the bonafide belief that written statement was already filed on record does not appear to be plausible.
Be that as it may, the matter is at initial stage i.e. for hearing of N/M and Ch/sum. Substantial rights of the parties are involved. There should not be hyper-technical and pedantic approach in dealing with such type of N/M. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, if written statement of deft. no.2 is taken on record. The delay on the part of deft. no.2 causing inconvenience to the plaintiff can be compensated by imposing reasonable cost. It would be in the interest of the parties to prosecute the matter on merits. Thus, in the interest of justice, it is just and expedient to pass the following order.
ORDER
1. N/M No.537/20 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by deft. no.2 to the plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today.
2. On payment of cost, draft of written statement annexed with the N/M be taken on record.
3. N/M No.537/20 is disposed of accordingly.
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 08-03-2021
