Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: :1: Ch.S. No.223/2018 in Sum. Suit No.941/2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.223 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC010016032018
IN
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO.286 OF 2017
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 941 OF 2017
D. Jamnadas & Co. ]...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Kotecha Industries Limited and others. ]...Defendants.
Appearances:
Advocate Vigil Juris i.b. Advocate Mr. Manish Trivedi for the Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Anand K. Kandoi for the Defendants.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.9)
DATED : 11th JANUARY, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendants have stated that there is delay of 46 days in filing
leave to defend. He has stated that on receiving Summons for
Judgment, his Advocate had tried to contact him. He has stated that the
registered office of the defendant No.1 is situated in Gujarat, and the
correspondence are being handled from the said office at Gujarat and
the present suit is filed at Mumbai and he personally handling the
present matter and in view thereof the contact details of the other
concerned persons of the defendant No.1 were not shared by him with
their Advocate. He has further stated that during relevant point of time
-- 1 of 4 --
:2: Ch.S. No.223/2018 in Sum. Suit No.941/2017
he was traveling and his mobile number was not reachable and even the
contact details of other concerned persons of the defendant No.1 were
not shared by him with their Advocate, therefore, their Advocate could
not contact and inform about the service of the said Summons for
Judgment on him by the plaintiff's Advocate. He has further stated that
he casually forwarded a Greeting Message to their Advocate on the
occasion of Makarsankranti festival and he had immediately contacted
him and told him to come to his office for the preparation of leave to
defend affidavit. He has further stated that due to his pre occupation,
he could visit their Advocate's office on 26th January, 2018 and gave
necessary instructions for preparation of leave to defend. He has further
stated that therefore, their Advocate could not prepare and filed leave
to defend within the prescribed time. Therefore, there is delay of 46
days in filing leave to defend.
2. Plaintiff has stated that in absence of defendant No.3, and any
other defendant could have issued directions to defendants Advocate to
inform so that leave to defend is filed on time and defendant No.3 could
have given directions on phone.
3. Plaintiff has further contended that the defendants have no
defence in the suit and they have wilfully admitted the balance amount
due and therefore, prayed for rejection of the application.
4. It appears that defendant No.1 is a Company situated at Gujarat
and also at Mumbai. Considering the facts that the delay is of 46 days
ans Summons for Judgment was served on Advocate of defendants and
not personally on defendants, it will be proper to condone delay and to
give opportunity to defendants to file application for leave to defend.
-- 2 of 4 --
:3: Ch.S. No.223/2018 in Sum. Suit No.941/2017
But, at the same time, plaintiff needs to be compensated for delay of 46
days caused in filing such application for delay. Hence, following
order:
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.223/2018 is granted, subject to cost of
Rs.1,500/ to be given by defendants to plaintiff.
2. Chamber Summons No.223/2018 stands disposed off.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 11.01.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 11.01.2019
Transcribed on : 11.01.2019
Signed on : 11.01.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
:4: Ch.S. No.223/2018 in Sum. Suit No.941/2017
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
15.01.2019 At 2:39 pm. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
11.01.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 11.01.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 15.01.2019
-- 4 of 4 --