Date: 16-03-2020
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2020
Date: 27-04-2020
Reason For Adjournment: National Lock Down
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2020
Date: 18-05-2020
Business: As per office order no.77/2020 dated 43.5.2020 and due to lock-down, matter is adjourned.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2020
Date: 05-06-2020
Business: In view of declaration of Novel Corona Virus (Covid 19) as global Pandemic by WHO and Office Order no.83/2020, matter is adjourned
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2020
Date: 23-06-2020
Business: None present. In view of declaration of Novel Corona Virus (COVID 19) as Global Pandemic by WHO and Office Orders, matter is adjourned to
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2020
Date: 25-09-2020
Business: Both the parties are absent. Due to Covid-19, the matter is adjourned to 14.12.2020.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2020
Date: 14-12-2020
Business: Adv. Rishabh for plaintiff present.
None for deft.
Adv. for plaintiff filed reply to the N/M of deft. no.1. T.O.R.
Plaintiff to comply the order in Ch/sum dated 16.03.2020.
The matter is adjd for N/M hearing and compliance to 10.02.2021.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2021
Date: 10-02-2021
Business: Adv. Rishabh Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. Redekar for deft. no.1 present.
Plaintiff has complied the order dated 16.03.2020.
Ld. counsel for deft. no.1 undertakes to file vakalatnama on next date.
The matter is adjd for hearing on N/M No.932/20 to 05.03.2021.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2021
Date: 05-03-2021
Business: Adv. Rishabh Singh for plaintiff present.
Adv. Sonam More for deft. no.1 present.
Vakalatnama filed on behalf of deft. no.1. T.O.R.
O. - Seen and filed.
ORDER BELOW N/M NO.932/20
Heard. By this N/M, deft. no.1 seeks permission to file written statement by condoning the delay.
The contention of deft. no.1 is that the writ of summons was not served upon the deft. no.1 and the matter was never listed before the Chamber Judge or Prothonotary, Sr. Master, Hon\''ble High Court Bombay for direction for filing written statement. She would submit that High Court Original Side Rule no.74 prescribe to file written statement within 12 weeks from service of writ of summons. The matter was transferred to this Court and on 20.12.2012, order was passed to proceed without written statement of the deft. The Ld. Counsel for deft. no.1 submitted that the deft. no.1 has good case on merit and wish to bonafidely contest the suit.
Ld. counsel for plaintiffs vehemently opposed the N/M. He would submit that deft. no.1 hotly contested the N/M before the Hon\''ble High Court and had every occasion to deal with avernments in the plaint. He further submitted that the delay is inordinate. The deft. no.1 failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon following judgments, (1) Smt. Varhyan wd/o. Narendra Singh Chhatwal since (D) thr. LRs. V/s. Smt. Kala wd/o. Narendra Singh Chhatwal and Ors., 2015(6) ALL MR 324 and (2) Lanka Ventakeswarlu (Dead) by LRS. V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 363.
I have considered the law laid down in above cited judgments. There is no quarrel about the law enunciated in the above cited judgments. The argument of Ld. Counsel for deft. no.1 that writ of summons was not served and there was no occasion for this deft. to file written statement cannot be accepted. Once the party appeared in the matter, there is no need of separate writ of summons to be served.
The suit was dismissed on 17.01.2013 by the then Presiding Officer of this Court. After a span of almost four and a half year, the plaintiff tendered N/M for restoration of suit which was allowed by order dated 29.08.2019. Now, it is not open for the plaintiff to point out the conduct of deft. no.1 for delay and latches for filing the written statement. In these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the law cited in the above judgments will not come to the rescue of the plaintiff. Still, in the matter, the evidence is not yet started. Substantial rights of the parties are involved. There should not be hyper-technical and pedantic approach in dealing with such type of N/M. This Court is the first Court of facts and therefore, fair opportunity should be given to the parties to present their case. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if deft. no.1 is permitted to put his defence. Rather it would be in the interest of the parties, if matter is decided on merits. In view of the above discussion, the N/M needs consideration and it is expedient to pass the following order.
ORDER
1. N/M No.932/20 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) to (c) subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today.
2. On payment of cost, written statement filed on record along with N/M be taken on record.
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 05-03-2021
