Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.964 OF 2019
IN
S.C.SUIT NO.2289 OF 2018
(CNR NO: MHCC01-002545-2019)
Ms.Esmat @ Ismat Chavoshpour
Through C.A. Mohd.Kazem Akhondpour ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr.Gholam Reza Akhondpour & Ors. ... Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI K.P.NANDEDKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.9)
DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2020
Mr.Vasant Rajnale, ld. adv. for plaintiffs.
Mr.Rajesh Chheda, ld adv. for defendant no.1.
O R D E R
1. This notice of motion is taken out by defendant no.1 for
condonation of delay of 120 days caused in filing the written statement
by defendant no.1.
2. Affidavit is filed by defendant no.1 in support of notice of
motion contending that writ of summons along with copy of notice of
motion No.3919/2018 was served him on 26/10/2018 and he came to
know that his Aunt through her C.A. has filed this suit. Thereafter,
defendant no.1 approached to his advocate and on brief discussion with
his advocate who had advised defendant no.1 to provide certain
documents for preparing written statement. Thereafter, defendant no.1
obtained said all documents and sent those documents to his advocate
by post. Copy of Power of Attorney was sent to his advocate by post.
Thereafter, his advocate started preparing written statement. However,
in this process the delay is caused in filing written statement and his
advocate informed him about said delay. Thereafter, this notice of
motion is taken out.
-- 1 of 3 --
:2: NM.964/19 IN SUIT-2289/2018
3. Plaintiff has resisted the notice of motion by filing the
affidavit of reply contending that defendant no.1 has miserably failed to
explain the delay and he has no justifying reason to condone the delay.
It is alleged that the discussion between defendant no.1 and his
advocate cannot be the ground for condoning the delay. It is alleged
that defendant no.1 has deliberately caused the delay in filing written
statement and he has no sufficient cause to condone it. Hence, plaintiff
has prayed to dismiss the notice of motion.
4. Heard advocate for defendant no.1 and plaintiff’s advocate.
Admittedly, the suit is filed for dissolution of partnership and therefore,
for preparation of written statement definitely certain documents are
necessary to be collected by contesting defendant. In such
circumstances, if defendant no.1 would have been advised to collect
such documents and if really he would have required certain time to
collect such documents, it can be said that definitely he has justifiable
reason for condoning the delay caused in filing written statement.
However, law expects that every defendant should file written statement
within 30 days from the service of writ of summons. In such
circumstances, considering the grounds raised by defendant no.1, I find
that opportunity can be given to him to file his written statement by
condoning the delay subject to costs of Rs.1,200/- to plaintiff. Hence, I
proceed to pass following order.
O R D E R
Notice of Motion No.964 of 2019 is made absolute in terms of
prayer clauses(a) and (b), subject to cost of Rs.1,200/- to be paid
by defendant no.1 to plaintiff.
Sd/-
(K.P.NANDEDKAR)
21/02/2020 JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 21/02/2020
Transcribed on : 13/03/2020
Signed by HHJ on : 16/03/2020
-- 2 of 3 --
:3: NM.964/19 IN SUIT-2289/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
16/03/2020 03.20 PM B.R.HATEKAR (S.G.)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri K.P.NANDEDKAR(CR No.9)
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order. 21/02/2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 16/03/2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 16/03/2020
-- 3 of 3 --