Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01002495201918 Mar 2019
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 18 Mar 2019 · CNR MHCC010024952019

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: N.M. No.942/2019 in Summary Suit No.1216/2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOITON NO. 942 OF 2019
CNR NO.: MHCC010024952019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 1216 OF 2017
Sanjay Rameshchandra Jain ]...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Maharashtra Hardware & Tools & Anr. ]...Defendants.
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Ramesh Jain for the plaintiff.
None for the defendants.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.28)
DATED : 18th MARCH, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant has stated that he thought that after filing of
vakalatnama his presence will not be required. He has stated that his
Advocate was trying to his phone call but was unable to get connected.
He has further stated that on 18.02.2019 he received a call from Clerk
of his Advocate that it is necessary to file reply and therefore he rushed
to Mumbai. Defendant has further stated that he is having valid and
substantial defence and prayed for condonation of delay of 312 days in
filing reply.
2. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff has filed reply to this Notice of
Motion and stated that appropriate order be passed.
-- 1 of 3 --
:2: N.M. No.942/2019 in Summary Suit No.1216/2017
3. It appears the delay of 312 days which is not small one. The
reasons that defendant felt that his presence will not be required and
therefore, for such long time of 312 days there was no communication
between him and his Advocate appears not fully satisfactory for
condonation of delay for such long period. But at the same time,
plaintiff has not objected or challenge such reasons for delay given by
defendant. Hence, it appears delay by defendant is not intentional.
Considering the circumstances that defendant is stating he is having
good case on merits. In the circumstances of this case it will be proper
to condone delay subject to compensatory cost to be given to plaintiff.
Hence, following order:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.942 of 2019 is allowed, subject to cost of
Rs.10,000/ to be given by defendants to plaintiff.
2. Notice of Motion No.942 of 2019 stands disposed of.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 18.03.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 18.03.2019
Transcribed on : 18.03.2019
Signed on : 18.03.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
:3: N.M. No.942/2019 in Summary Suit No.1216/2017
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
18.03.2019 At 5:34 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
18.03.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 18.03.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 18.03.2019
-- 3 of 3 --

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