Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.772 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.248 OF 2017
Viswanathan Nair … Plaintiff
V/s.
Pooja Prajawalant Satpute & Anr. … Defendants
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Ali for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Rachure for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R. No.20)
DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2019
ORDER
Defendants have taken out this notice of motion for taking
their written statement on record by condoning the delay of 317 days.
2. It is argued on behalf of defendant that on 07.02.2018 they
have served with suit summons. On 12.02.2018 they have put their
appearance through advocate. The Ld. Counsel was in process to
prepare the draft written statement. The defendants were under tress
because of some office problem. Therefore, on 09.04.2018 they have
applied for adjournment for filing written statement. However, Court
has rejected their application. Even on subsequent dates they could not
file their written statement. The delay is not intentional one.
MHCC010021972019
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 772/2019 .. 2 .. Suit No.248/2017
Defendants are ever ready to proceed with the suit. They must get fair
opportunity to defend the case. Therefore defendant prayed for
accepting written statement by condoning the delay of 317 days.
3. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has resisted the application. It
is argued that on 07.02.2018 the defendants were well aware about
next date of 12.02.2018 for filing written statement. Roznama shows
that they could not file written statement for next 34 dates. It goes to
shows that in order to delay the matter they have not filed written
statement. So considering the conduct of defendants, they have not
desirable for delay condonation. As such their written statement may
not be taken on record.
4. It is an admitted fact that on 07.02.2018 defendants have
received the suit summons having due date on 12.02.2018. On
12.02.2018 they appeared through advocate. Roznama shows that
thereafter they have sought some adjournments. Even on passing no
written statement order for 34 dates they have not taken steps to file
the written statement. Therefore, it goes to show that there is some
lethargy on the part of defendants for filing written statement.
5. While observing about delay, it can not be ignored that as
far as possible matter must be decided on merit by giving full
opportunity to the parties to put their case. As a rule of natural justice
no one should be condemned unheard. If matter is decided on merit
then it will give finality to the dispute. So also Court should not be too
technical to deprive parties from substantial justice. Therefore in my
opinion opportunity should be given to defendants to file their written
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 772/2019 .. 3 .. Suit No.248/2017
statement by condoning the delay. Considering the delay of 317 days it
is equally necessary to impose certain cost on defendants. With this I
proceed to pass the order.
ORDER
1. NM No.772/19 in SU No.1810/19 (248/18) is hereby
allowed.
2. The no WS order dt. 09.04.2018 is hereby set aside by
condoning delay of 317 days on defendants paying cost of
Rs.5,000/ to the plaintiff or to deposit it in the Court on or
before next date.
3. On compliance of cost order defendant's written statement
be taken on record.
( MILIND V. KURTADIKAR )
Judge, (C.R. No.20)
Dt.: 11/09/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 11.09.2019
Transcribed on : 16.09.2019
Signed on : 16.09.2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
16.09.2019 02.10 p.m. Sanjay B. Kaskar
(Stenographer H.G.)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.V. Kurtadikar
(CR No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
11.09.2019.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 16.09.2019.
Judgement/order uploaded on 16.09.2019.
-- 3 of 3 --