Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF :COURT 14 ASST SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0100827/2020
Vikas Gaurishankar Jhunjhunwala Vs M/s. Laminating and Packing
Products and Ors.
Date : 04102021
Business : Adv. Ajinkya Lokare for plaintiff present.
Plaintiff present. Adv. Usha Agarwal for
deft. no.3 present. Heard Adv. For deft.
no.3 and Adv. For plaintiff on N/M
no.827/20. ORDER BELOW N/M
NO.827/20 This N/M is taken out by deft.
no.3 praying to condone delay in causing
appearance before the Court. It is submitted
on behalf of deft. no.3 that he has
instructed Adv. Kishor Goswami for
appearing before the Court. But, said
advocate did not appear before the Court
within stipulated period. Deft. no.3 was
undergoing medical treatment for ailments
regarding heart disease. Deft. no.3 has
undergone angioplasty in January 2020.
After getting knowledge about the exparte
order dated 21.06.2019, deft. no.3
appointed new advocate and filed present
N/M. By making these submissions, deft.
no.3 prayed to condone delay caused in
appearance before the Court. Plaintiff by
filing reply affidavit submits that deft. no.3
was supposed to appear before the court
within 10 days of the service of writ of
summons. Deft. no.3 was served with writ
of summons on 03.05.2019. But, failed to
appear within stipulated period and
therefore, exparte order came to be passed
against deft. no.3 on 21.06.2019. There is
inordinate delay in causing appearance
before the Court and deft. no.3 failed to
give sufficient cause for said delay. By
making these submissions, plaintiff prayed
to reject the N/M. Considered the
submissions advanced on behalf of both
sides. Deft. no.3 was served with writ of
summons on 03.05.2019. But, he failed to
-- 1 of 2 --
appear before the Court within stipulated
period. Present N/M is taken out by deft.
no.3 on 12.02.2020. Roznama shows that
deft. nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Court
within stipulated period and plaintiff has
already taken out summons for judgment.
During the course of arguments, Ld.
Counsel for plaintiff submits that N/M may
be allowed subject to heavy costs. Deft.
nos.1 and 2 are already contesting the
summons for judgment by filing their reply.
Deft. no.1 is a partnership firm. Deft. nos.2
and 3 are partners of deft. no.1/firm.
Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to
plaintiff, if delay in causing appearance of
deft. no.3 is condoned and he is permitted
to contest the summons for judgment.
However, it cannot be ignored that delay in
causing appearance by the deft. no.3 has
caused delay in hearing of the suit.
Considering the valuation of the claim and
the period of delay, this Court would be
well justified in imposing costs of
Rs.10,000/ while allowing present N/M. In
the result, following order. ORDER 1. N/M
No.827/20 is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) and (b) subject to payment of
costs of Rs.10,000/ payable to the plaintiff
on or before next date. 2. After payment of
costs, appearance of deft. no.3 be taken on
record. 3. N/M No.827/20 is disposed of
accordingly.
Nature of
Disposal
: ALLOWED
Disposal Date : 04102021
-- 2 of 2 --