Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01002307201905 Nov 2019
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 05 Nov 2019 · CNR MHCC010023072019

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Notice of Motion No.868/19
in Summary Suit No.555/2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
Notice of Motion No.868 of 2019
(CNR NO. MH CC010023072019)
In
SUMMARY SUIT No.555 OF 2017
M/s. Jethabhai Gopalji
A registered Partnership Firm having
office at 2, Gaya Building, Ground Floor,
Dariya Sathan Street, Masjid Bunder
Mumbai400 003. ....Plaintiff
V/s.
Sarda Agro Oils Limited
A Company registered under
the Companies Act, 1956
having its registered address
at office No.208, 2nd Floor,
Model House, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad. ....Defendant
Appearance:
Mr. Roshan Raut, Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Akshay Tapkir, Advocate for the defendant
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
JAYSHRI R. PULATE
Adhoc Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay
(C.R.NO.40)
DATE : 05 th November, 2019.
ORDER
1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by defendant for
condonation of delay of 122 days in filing the affidavit in reply to
summons for Judgment.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Notice of Motion No.868/19
in Summary Suit No.555/2017
2. Heard both the sides. On behalf of plaintiff reply is not filed
on record. It is submitted by learned Advocate of defendant that prayer
clause (b) of the suit reflects that the plaintiff is also the custodian of
goods. Another suit for same relief is pending in other court. It is further
submitted that the defendant Company is having its registered offices at
Hyderabad and therefore enormous time was wasted in communication
between the various offices and Advocates situated in Mumbai. The
delay is inadvertently caused in filing the reply of summons for
judgment. Therefore, it is prayed that due to the age and medical
condition of the representative of the defendant, notice of motion may
kindly be made absolute.
Per contra, it is submitted by learned Advocate of plaintiff
that the reason mentioned in the notice of motion for the delay caused in
tendering reply to summons for judgment is not justifiable. Therefore, it
is prayed that the notice of motion may kindly be dismissed.
3. It is well settled that in considering the prayer of
condonation of delay, primary function of the court is to adjudicate the
dispute between the parties and liberal approach should be adopted by
the court. The reason mentioned in the notice of motion about the
registered office address of Defendant's Company at Hyderabad and
consumption of time in making communication between the various
offices and Advocates situated in Mumbai, appears to be sufficient cause
in order to condone the delay of 122 days. No prejudice or harm will
cause to the plaintiff, if the delay is condoned as plaintiff has to base its
claim on the basis of documents adduced on record. However, for the
delay caused on behalf of defendant, plaintiff Company should be
compensated sufficiently in order to advance substantial justice.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Notice of Motion No.868/19
in Summary Suit No.555/2017
4. In view of forgoing discussion, the prayer in notice of motion needs
favourable consideration to the extent of condonation of delay and
allowing the defendant to file affidavit in reply to summons for
judgment. Resultantly, I pass following order.
ORDER
1) Notice of Motion No.868/2019 is allowed.
2) The delay caused in filing notice of motion is condoned subject
to cost of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to the plaintiff to be
paid on or before the next date.
3) After compliance, the affidavit in reply of the defendant be taken
on record.
4) Notice of Motion No.868/2019, is disposed off accordingly.
(Jayshri R. Pulate)
Adhoc Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay
Date : 05/11/2019
Dictated on : 05.11.2019
Transcribed on : 06.11.2019
Signed on : 07.11.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Notice of Motion No.868/19
in Summary Suit No.555/2017
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE TIME STENOGRAPHER NAME
08.11.2019 4.35 p.m. Ms. Ujwala J. Bhagat.
Name of the Judge H.H.J. Jayshri R. Pulate.
Adhoc Judge.
(Court Room No.40)
Date of pronouncement of Order 05.11.2019
Order signed by P.O. on 07.11.2019
Order uploaded on 08.11.2019
-- 4 of 4 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.