Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 08/03/2021
SU- 2655/14
Exh.5
Contd...
SU- 2655/14
CORAM : H.H.J.SHRI M. S. AZMI (C. R. NO. 01)
Adv. Jadhav for plaintiff present.
Adv. Singha for deft. no.2 present.
Adv. Bharti for proposed deft. in Ch/sum no.336/21 present.
Vakalatnama filed by counsel for proposed deft. T.O.R.
O. - Seen and filed.
Ld. counsel for plaintiff tendered registered Ch/sum no.336/21.
T.O.R.
Ld. counsel for deft. no.2 filed rejoinder in reply to N/M No.546/20.
T.O.R.
ORDER IN N/M NO.546/20
Heard. By this N/M, deft. no.2 seeks permission to file written
statement by condoning the delay of 1869 days in filing written
statement. It is contended by deft. no.2 that writ of summons was
served upon to deft. no.1 on 01.10.2014. This deft. approached Adv.
Mahesh Ayare and he filed vakalatnama and sought time to file
written statement and reply to N/M no.3909/14. Reply to said N/M
was filed on 16.02.2015. 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.546/20 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.546/20 is disposed of accordingly.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
The matter is adjd for reply to Ch/sum no.336/21 to 19.04.2021.
Judge
-- 1 of 2 --
-- 2 of 2 --