Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 428/18 SUIT NO.2183/15 1
CNR.NO.MHCC010016842018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.428 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 2183 OF 2015
Sacos Indigo Private Limited .. .. Plaintiff
Versus
Bank of India & others ...Defendants
Advocate Smt. Kavita Mungse for Plaintiff.
Advocate Shri. Vinay Ghodge for Defendant no.2.
Advocate Shri. Kapse for Defendant no. 4 .
Coram : Her Honour Judge
Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
Ad hoc Asst.Judge
CR no. : 32
Dated : 6th April,20018
ORDER
1. Defendant took out this notice of motion for condonation of delay
in filing written statement.
2. Defendant company served the writ of summons on 29/8/2016.
Defendants Regional Manager Sheetal Karambar was on maternity
leave from 6/8/2016 to 1/3/2017, therefore, the packet which contents
writ of summons was not allocated within time to the advocate for filing
written statement. Advocate Shri.Vivek Patil and Associates filed the
vakalatnama on behalf of the defendant/company and matter was
adjourned on 01/10/2016 for filing written statement. As the Regional
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 428/18 SUIT NO.2183/15 2
Manager was on maternity leave therefore, matter was missed the track
and written statement could not be finalized and therefore, delay has
been caused. Delay is not intentional, hence, prays that delay be
condoned in filing written statement.
3. Plaintiff filed the affidavit in reply. Writ of summons was served
on the defendants on 29/8/2016 however, defendant has come up with
a vague excuse and concocted story in order to justify delay of 163
days. Defendant deliberately not filed the written statement in time,
hence, prays that notice of motion be dismissed with costs.
4. Heard learned advocates.
5. The writ of summons was served on defendant company on
29/8/2016. Therefore, it was expected from the defendant to file its
written statement within a period of 30 days or on recorded reasons
within 90 days but the Regional Manager of Legal Department was on
maternity leave from 6/8/2016 to 1/3/2017. Therefore, in her absence,
for taking the necessary approvals from the management time was
passed and hence could not file the written statement within time.
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. Suit is for recovery of rent and removal of printing machine.
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 428/18 SUIT NO.2183/15 3
Defendant is a company if a written statement of the defendant is not
taken on record serious prejudice will be caused to the defendant. The
reasons for not filing the written statement is found to be justified
therefore, I am of the view, that if the delay in filing the written
statement is condoned by imposing costs of Rs.3000/(Rs.Three
thousand only) be paid to the plaintiff then that will be justifiable for
the interest of both the parties. Hence, I proceed to pass following
order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion no. 428/2018 is made absolute.
2. Delay in filing written statement is hereby condoned by
imposing cost of Rs.3000/(Rs.Three thousand only)
be paid to the plaintiff.
3. After compliance the written statement of defendant be
taken on record.
Dated :06/04/2018 (Pushpa N. Rao)
Ad hoc Asst. Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Greater Mumbai
Dictation direct typed on computer on : 06/04/2018
Signed by HHJ on : 06/04/2018
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 428/18 SUIT NO.2183/15 4
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
09/04/2018 at ( 12.17 P.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
06/04/2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
06/04/2018
JUDGMENT/ ORDER uploaded on 09/04/2018
..
-- 4 of 4 --