Date: 05-03-2019
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Thorat for plaintiff and Adv. Minu Singh for defendant no. 1 and 2, Adv. Sameer for def. no. 3 are present.
Adv. Thorat submits that though the counter claim is marked with Exh. number it is not yet registered. Adv. Sameer submits that the plaintiff has not taken out any NM for condonation of delay in filing his w.s. to the counter claim. The point regarding the registration will be considered. Adv. Thorat submits that the applicant in Ch/s no. 648/2017 is not prosecuting the same and necessary orders will be passed.
Adjd for Ch/s arguments to 09.04.2019.
Next Purpose: C/S ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2019
Date: 09-04-2019
Business: Incharge of C.R No.1
Adv. Bhosale for plaintiff.
Applicant in Ch/s is present.
Adv. Minu Singh for Deft No.1 and 2 present.
Adv. Devgirikar for Deft no.3 present.
Advocate for deft no.3 filed application. TOR and marked as Exh.12.
Matter is adjd to 26.06.2019 for Ch/s hearing.
Next Purpose: C/S HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2019
Date: 09-04-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: C/S HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2019
Date: 09-04-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: C/S HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2019
Date: 09-04-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: C/S HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2019
Date: 09-04-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: C/S HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2019
Date: 26-06-2019
Business: Adv. Mhatre for plaintiff present.
Adv. Deogirikar for deft. no. 3 present.
Adv. Meenu Singh for deft. nos. 1 and 2 present.
Order below Exh. 12
Read application. Heard Ld counsel for deft. no. 3. It is submitted on behalf of deft. no 3 that he has tendered the copy of counter claim to the original plaintiff on 18.7.2018. The written statement to counter claim was filed on 12.2.2019 by the plaintiff without seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement. He would submit that as per Order VIII rule 1 of the CPC the written statement is required to be filed within 30 days and with the leave of the court within 90 days. The written statement was filed after six months and therefore the order dated 12.2.2019 is required to be modified.
On perusal of the record it appears that no written statement order was not passed. The written statement was tendered on 12.2.2019. It was taken on record. The counsel for the original deft. no. 3 was not present on that day. The roznama dated 5.3.2019 speaks that the counsel for original deft. Nos. 3 was present and on that day no such application was moved on behalf of deft. no. 3 or objection was taken. This application was tendered on 9.4.2019 after a period of two months of taking written statement on record. The provisions of order 8 rule 1 of CPC are directory. Even otherwise when the written statement of the original plaintiff is taken on the record by the predecessor of this court, it would not be proper for this court to review the order when there is no apparent illegality. No prejudice would be caused to the original deft. no. 3. The application needs no consideration. Hence, the application (Exh. 12) is rejected.
Intervener Mr. Harshit Mhatre is presnet. He seeks time to engage new advocate for hearing Chamber summons. Granted as a last chance.
Adv. Meenu Singh tendered registered NM 889/18. TOR.
Heard argument on NM No. 889/18.
Order below NM 889/18
This Notice of Motion is tendered by original defendant nos. 1 and 2 for condoning the delay in filing written statement to the counter claim of original defendant no. 3. The Ld. counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 2 submitted that due to financial constrain and illness of the defendant no. 1 the written statement to counter claim cannot be filed within stipulated time.
The original deft. no. 3/ plaintiff did not seriously opposed the leave for condonation of delay.
It is settled position of the law that, at the time of entertaining the application for condonation of delay, the court should not adopt hyper technical and pedantic approach. In the interest of justice Notice of Motion needs consideration. Hence it is expedient to pass following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 889/18 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).
2. Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly.
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 26-06-2019
