Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM No.621-2019 in SU 1947-2013
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.621 OF 2019
IN
L. C. SUIT NO.1947 OF 2013
CNR NO.: MHCC01-001613-2019
Sangita S. Chauhan … Plaintiff
Vs.
MCGM & Ors. … Defendants
Appearance:
Ld. Adv D. M. Vyas for defendant No.1.
None for the plaintiff.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R. S. PAVASKAR
(C.R.NO.12)
DATE : 12th MARCH 2021
ORAL ORDER
Defendant No.1 has taken out this notice of motion under
Order VIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (in short ‘CPC’) for the condonation of the delay in filing a
written statement.
2. Perused the notice of motion and the affidavit filed in
support thereof.
Page 1 of 3
-- 1 of 3 --
NM No.621-2019 in SU 1947-2013
3. Admittedly, defendant No.1 was served with summons on
11.12.2014. So, as per the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC,
defendant No.1 ought to have filed a written statement within 30 days
from 11.12.2014. However, defendant No.1 failed to file a written
statement within the time stipulated under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC.
Therefore, as per the order dated 23.09.2015, the suit was ordered to
be proceeded without a written statement against defendant No.1.
4. Defendant No.1 has filed this notice of motion on
12.02.2019 for condonation of delay of three years and three months in
filing a written statement.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the notice of motion, it
has been contended that due to heavy workload, the concerned officer
of defendant No.1 was not available. Documents were not traceable,
and therefore, defendant No.1 could not file a written statement within
the stipulated time.
6. The reasons assigned by defendant No.1 for its failure to
file a written statement within the time stipulated under Rule 1 Order
VIII of CPC cannot be said to be exceptional. However, considering the
fact that the plaintiff has failed to contest the notice of motion and the
present suit pertains to immovable property, to my mind, it is expedient
in the interest of justice to allow defendant No.1 to file a written
statement by condoning the delay. However, at the same time, it is
necessary to saddle defendant No.1 with costs for the delay in filing a
written statement. Accordingly, I hold that notice of motion deserves to
Page 2 of 3
-- 2 of 3 --
NM No.621-2019 in SU 1947-2013
be allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to costs of Rs.3,000/-.
Hence, the order:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.621 of 2019 is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a) subject to costs of Rs.3,000/-,
which shall be remitted to the District Legal Services
Authority, Mumbai.
2. Notice of Motion No.621 of 2019 is accordingly disposed
of.
Sd/-
R. S. PAVASKAR
Judge,
Date : 12/03/2021 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 12/03/2021
Transcribed on : 12/03/2021
HHJ signed on : 12/03/2021
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
15.03.2021 10.36 a.m. ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Shri. R.S. PAVASKAR (CR 12)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
12.03.2021
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
12.03.2021
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
15.03.2021
Page 3 of 3
-- 3 of 3 --