Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CH/s.IN Sum. S No.659/17 Oral Order 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.313 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.659 OF 2017
Kiran Vedprakash Hassanandani ...Plaintiff
V/s
M/s.Doshi Impex & Ors. ...Defendants
Coram : His Honour Judge Shri M.M.Umar
(C.R. No.28)
Dated : 27/06/2018
Adv. Mr.Raut for plaintiff.
Adv. Mr. Mhapankar for defendants.
ORAL ORDER
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendant for
condoning the delay of 22 days caused in filing the affidavit in reply to
the Summons for Judgment .
2. Read the application and say given by learned advocate for
plaintiff on the application itself. Heard.
3. Learned advocate for the defendant has submitted that the
copy of Summons for Judgment was served upon the advocate of
defendant, when the defendant was out of station, so also, his advocate
was having some personal medical problems as he had undergone a
-- 1 of 4 --
CH/s.IN Sum. S No.659/17 Oral Order 2
cataract surgery on his left eye and was not in a position to attend his
office and there was another cataract surgery of his right eye on
29/12/2017. Therefore, he was not able to read anything for about 20
days from the date of surgery. It is submitted that in the abovesaid
circumstances reply could not be finalized and the delay caused is not
deliberate. Therefore, it is requested to allow the defendant to file their
affidavit in reply to the above Summons for Judgment and the Chamber
Summons was taken out by the defendants, be made absolute.
4. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for plaintiff has
submitted that there is no proper explanation from the side of
defendants for not filing the reply to the Summons for Judgment within
the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, it is submitted that the
ground raised for condoning of delay are not sufficient. It is submitted
to reject the application. In alternative, it is submitted that if the Court
inclines to allow the application, heavy costs be imposed on the
defendant.
5. I have duly considered the above submissions of both the
sides, so also, I have gone carefully through the case papers. It appears
that the Summons for Judgment was served upon the defendant when
the defendant was out of Station. So also, it appears that there was
cataract surgery on the left eye of the learned advocate for defendant
on 22/12/2017 and on right eye on 29/12/2017. Consequently, the
delay of 22 days is caused in filing the affidavit in reply to Summons for
-- 2 of 4 --
CH/s.IN Sum. S No.659/17 Oral Order 3
Judgment. It appears that the said delay is not deliberate nor
intentional, so also, it appears that it is not due to negligence on the
part of defendants. It appears that if the delay is not condoned for filing
the affidavit in reply to the Summons for Judgment, there is a
possibility that the serious prejudice would cause to the defendants.
Hence, the interest of justice requires to condone the delay, to meet the
ends of justice, subject to sufficient costs payable by the defendants to
the plaintiff. In the result, following order is passed:
ORDER
1. Chamber summons no.313/18 is allowed.
2. The delay caused for filing the reply to the Summons for
Judgment is hereby condoned, subject to payment of costs of
Rs.1,000/ payable to the plaintiff by the defendants on or before next
date.
3. Chamber Summons no.313/18 is disposed of accordingly.
(M.M.UMAR)
Judge,
27/06/2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Date of Dictation : 27/06/18.
Date of Transcription : 27/06/18.
Date of signature : 02/07/18
-- 3 of 4 --
CH/s.IN Sum. S No.659/17 Oral Order 4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
07.07.18 Mrs.Jyoti R.Mane
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri.M.M.Umar(CR
No.28)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
27.06.18
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 02.07.18
Judgement/order uploaded on 02.07.18
-- 4 of 4 --