Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1025 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2489 OF 2017
M/s. Constro Systems & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. … Plaintiffs
V/s.
M/s. IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services
Ltd. & Ors. … Defendants
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Sundana Kayande for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Purva Jarge for defendant no.1.
Ld. Adv. Tulsi for defendant nos. 2 to 4.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R. No.20)
DATED : 01st AUGUST, 2019
ORDER
Plaintiff has taken out this notice of motion to allow him to
file reply to notice of motions taken out by defendant nos.2 and 3.
2. It is argued on behalf of plaintiff that defendant no.2 and 3
have taken out the notice of motions for setting aside exparte orders
and to allow them to file written statement on record. On 01.02.2019
matter was listed for filing say by plaintiff to those notice of motions.
Plaintiff was absent when matter was called out. So Court has passed
no reply order against plaintiff. In fact on 01.02.2019 reply of plaintiff
was ready and he was held up in the affirmation process at the office of
Registrar. There it caused five minutes delay in reaching the Court.
MHCC01002650201 9
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 1025/2019 .. 2 .. Suit No.2489/2017
Meanwhile the Court has passed the order. Neither there was delay nor
there is intention of plaintiff to delay the matter.
3. the Ld. Counsel for defendants have resisted this
application on the ground that despite opportunity plaintiff has failed to
file the reply to their notice of motion. There was intention to delay the
matter. Therefore, plaintiff cannot be allowed to file reply.
4. It is the matter of record that on 11.12.2018 draft notice of
motion were filed on behalf of defendant no.2 and 3 and matter was
listed on 01.02.2019 by reply of plaintiff. On that day Court has passed
no reply order. The record goes to show that on the very next date said
order was passed. It goes to show that there was no intentional delay
on the part of plaintiff. Even as per his submission his reply was ready
and he was held up in the affirmation process in the office of Registrar.
Considering said submission, I am of the opinion that plaintiff needs to
be given chance to file reply. Accordingly the order.
ORDER
1. NM No.1025/19 in SU No.2489/17 is hereby allowed.
2. Plaintiff is permitted to file reply to notice of motions filed
on behalf of D2 and 3.
( MILIND V. KURTADIKAR )
Judge, (C.R. No.20)
Dt.: 01/08/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 01.08.2019
Transcribed on : 03.08.2019
Signed on : 03.08.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 1025/2019 .. 3 .. Suit No.2489/2017
sbk/
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
07.08.2019 03.10 p.m. Sanjay Baliram Kaskar
(Stenographer Higher Grade)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.V. Kurtadikar
(CR No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
01.08.2019.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 03.08.2019.
Judgement/order uploaded on 07.08.2019.
-- 3 of 3 --