Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Notice of Motion No.805 of 2019 1 Suit No. 9530/1989
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION No.805/2019
IN
SUIT NO.9530/1989.
(High Court Suit No. 2167 of 1989)
Shaikh Mohammed Salim Hamid ... Plaintiff
V/s.
Smt. Kahirunisha Ziauddin Bukhari and Ors. .. Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. GOPAL G. BHANSALI.
(C.R. NO.07)
DATE : 25.02.2019.
Mr.Amin S. Shaikh, Advocate for plaintiff.
Adv. Prashant Aher, Advocate for Defendant No.4.
ORAL ORDER
This is a notice of motion taken out by defendant no.4 for
condonation of delay in submission of written statement. Perused the
reply filed by the plaintiff.
2. The learned advocate Prashant Aher for defendant no.4
requested to peruse the details, as mentioned in Chamber Summons
no. 1489 of 2014, defendant no.4 has impleaded as party in present
suit. However, defendant no.4 has not received the plaint and
document from the plaintiff. Therefore, defendant no.4 is constrained
to issue notice and received the documents from the plaintiff on
10.08.2017. Later on, defendant's wife and defendant no. 4 were
hospitalized. It is requested to peruse the discharge card. It is
-- 1 of 3 --
Notice of Motion No.805 of 2019 2 Suit No. 9530/1989
requested for condonation of delay of 151 days.
3. It is strongly resisted by learned advocate for plaintiff. It is
submitted that the period has to be counted till presentation of present
notice of motion which came to 511 days and it is added that defendant
no.4 and his wife were discharged from the hospital in August2017.
Therefore, there is no substance in present application. It is added that
despite an order of injunction, defendant no.3 executed sale deed in
favour of defendant no.4 by violating the prohibitory order issued by
this court. It is claimed to reject the motion. It is admitted that
defendant has submitted written statement on 28.02.2018.
4. No doubt as per order of chamber summons no. 1489/2014
defendant no.4 is impleaded as party in the proceeding. Plaintiff has
no dispute in respect of supplying the document by the plaintiff to the
defendant no.4 on 10.08.2017, after service of notice to the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the plaintiff on his own has committed fault in supplying
the document from 23.12.2016 to 10.08.2017. No doubt, there is delay
on the part of defendant no.4. However, defendant no.4 has explained
the delay. It is also supported with documents annexed with the list
Exh. A to C.
4. It is judicious to decide the matter on merit. This is a suit
for specific performance of contract. The final order of the suit will
effect over the rights of the parties to the extend of ownership of suit
property. Considering aforesaid discussion, the above mentioned delay
is condoned subject to cost of Rs. 3,000/ be paid to the plaintiff.
Hence, the order. :
-- 2 of 3 --
Notice of Motion No.805 of 2019 3 Suit No. 9530/1989
ORDER
The notice of motion no.805 of 2019 is allowed subject to
costs of Rs. 3,000/ (Rs.Three Thousand) be paid to the plaintiff on or
before next date.
(Gopal G.Bhansali )
Judge,
Date:25.02.2019. City Civil Court, Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on : 25.02.2019.
Transcribed on : 26.02.2019.
Signed on :
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
02.03.2019 at 01.45 pm. PUSHPA RAMESH WAGH
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI S.V. YARLAGADDA
(Court Room No.54)
Date of pronouncement of Order 25.02.2019
Order signed by P.O. on 02.03.2019
Order uploaded on 02.03.2019
-- 3 of 3 --