Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM 850-20 in Suit No.3296-2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.850 OF 2020
IN
SUIT NO. 3296 OF 2018
(C.N.R.No.MHCC01-002266-2020)
Mr. Swami Gopal Bhosale ] ….Plaintiff.
V/s.
Mrs. Chandrakala Popat Bhosale & Ors. ] ..Defendants.
Appearance :
Learned Adv. Mr.S. V. Parkhe for the plaintiff.
Learned Adv. Mr. Satish Kumbhar for defendant No.1.
Learned Adv. Mr. Trivedi for defendant No.3/SRA.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. V. S. KHOT
(C.R.NO.09)
DATE : 26th AUGUST, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
1. This Notice of Motion is filed by defendant No.1 for
condoning the delay and permitting him to file the written statement on
record.
2. The defendant No.1 submitted that, he received the
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 850-20 in Suit No.3296-2018
summons on 09.04.2019 but he could not file the written statement.
Therefore, the Court had passed the order of ‘No WS’ on 02.06.2019.
There is a delay of 120 days. The delay is required to be condoned as
the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 is of criminal
nature also. There is a serious question of rights, title and interest in the
litigation. The plaintiff has resorted to falsity and fake documents. The
defendant No.1 was seek in between May, 2019 to June, 2019. All these
aspects are necessary to be considered and delay of 120 days is required
to be condoned and defendant No.1 be allowed to file the written
statement.
03. The reply of the other side came to be invited. The other
side submitted that, averments made by the defendant No.1 are false
and carries no meaning. The defendant No.1 failed to file the written
statement within stipulated period of 30 days initially and thereafter
within 90 days. There is no question of criminal liability in the
litigation. The aspect of criminal case is having no concern in this
litigation. The reasons mentioned by the defendant No.1 are false and
those be rejected. The Notice of Motion is liable to be rejected.
04. In this case, there is a delay of 120 days in filing written
statement. The defendant No.1 is now ready to file the written
statement and he may be allowed to file the same for proper
adjudication, the written statement should be on record. If, the Notice
of Motion is rejected then, there would be serious prejudice to the
defendant No.1 but no prejudice would be occasioned to the plaintiff, if
the Notice of Motion is allowed. So, I am of the view that, defendant
No.1 should be allowed to file his written statement. Having regard to
the abovesaid reasons, I am inclined to pass the following order
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 850-20 in Suit No.3296-2018
resulting in allowing the Notice of Motion.
O R D E R
1. Notice of Motion No.850 of 2020 in suit No.3296 of 2018
stands allowed.
2. The delay of 120 days stands condoned and defendant No.1 is
hereby permitted to file the written statement and if, it is
already filed, then it be taken on record.
3. The defendant No.1 to pay the costs of Rs.5,00/- to the plaintiff
and payment of costs would be condition precedent for taking the
written statement on record.
3. The Notice of Motion stands disposed off accordingly.
(V. S. KHOT)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 26.08.2024 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 26.08.2024
Transcribed on : 26.08.2024
Signed on : 28.08.2024
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 850-20 in Suit No.3296-2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
28/08/2024 At 05.50 P.M. Ms. Manisha D. Hirole
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ SHRI. V. S. KHOT
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
26.08.2024
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 28.08.2024
Judgment/Order uploaded on 28.08.2024
-- 4 of 4 --