Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N.M.944-19 in Suit 1910-17 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.944 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 1910 OF 2017
(CNR.NO.MHCC010025002019)
Maind Investments Ltd. ..Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Ajay Rai & Ors. ..Defendants
Shri.J.Jejeeybhoy, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Defendant advocate absent.
Coram : Her Honour Judge
Smt. Pushpa N. Rao
Ad hoc Judge
CR No. : 32
Dated : 02nd May, 2019.
: ORDER :
1. Defendant No.1 taken out this Notice of Motion for
condonation of delay in filing written statement.
2. Writ of summons was served on Defendant No.1 on
25.11.2017. thereafter M/s. Cogito Legal Advocates advise him to
move Notice of Motion to challenge the suit on the issue of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, he had taken out Notice of Motion No.239/18, that Notice
of Motion was dismissed on 17.04.2018. Thereafter, attempt of
settlement was taken place between the parties but that could not be
succeed. Defendant No.1 had engaged Adv. S. Venkateshwar to
-- 1 of 4 --
N.M.944-19 in Suit 1910-17 2
represent him in the matter. His written statement was affirmed on
29.11.2018, however his Advocate could not press for filing the written
statement in time. When the matter was called out that time only the
presence of Defendant No.1 was recorded. On 15.01.2019, his
Advocate was directed to take out Notice of Motion with prayer for
condonation of delay in filing Written Statement of Defendant No.1.
Hence, this Notice of Motion is taken out. Defendant No.1 prays that
Notice of Motion be absolute as per prayer clause.
3. Plaintiff filed the reply on Notice of Motion. The present
Notice of Motion is another dilatory tactics employed by defendant no.1
to stall the progress of the suit. Defendant No.1 has no intention of
genuinely to defend the suit. Defendant no.1 has not provided any
sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the written statement.
Hence, plaintiff prays that Notice of Motion be dismissed with costs.
4. Defendant and advocate absent till 4.30 p.m. Heard
Ld.Shri.J.Jejeeybhoy for plaintiff.
5. Writ of summons are served on defendant on 25/11/2017
thereafter without filing written statement they chosen to tendered
Notice of Motion No.239/2018 for rejection of plaint, that motion was
dismissed on 17/04/2018.
6. Defendant no.1 had engaged Adv.Shri.S.Vekateshwar to
represent in the matter. Motion was also tendered through
Adv.S.Vekanteshwar by the defendant no.1. Though defendant no.1
was aware that motion was pending for hearing but they did not appear
-- 2 of 4 --
N.M.944-19 in Suit 1910-17 3
for the argument on motion. It also appears from the conduct of
defendant no.1 that they are not diligent in perusing the matter but
their intention is to protect the matter. Even the how many days delay
is also not mention by the defendant no.1 in filing the written
statement. The reason assigned for the defendant no.1 for condonation
of delay are not of 'sufficient cause' hence not entitled for condonation
of delay.
7. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following order.
: ORDER :
1. Notice of Motion No.944/2019 is dismissed with cost.
Date : 02.05.2019 (Pushpa N. Rao)
Ad hoc Judge
Bombay City Civil Court
Greater Mumbai
Dictation Direct typed on computer : 02.05.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 02.05.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
N.M.944-19 in Suit 1910-17 4
“ CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT / ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 02.05.2019 at 5.35 pm
NAME OF THE STOP GAP STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. P.S.Mahale
Name of the Judge HHJ Smt.Pushpa N Rao
C.R.No.32
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
02.05.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 02.05.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 02.05.2019
-- 4 of 4 --