Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 05.08.2025
Sr. No.30
CORAM : H. H. J. N. B. Lavte, City Civil Court,
Mazgaon, Mumbai, Judge (C. R. No. 83).
Sum Su
1218/16
NM 4320/17
Ch/s 391/18
Adv. Het Gala for plaintiff present and filed reply overleaf on Ch/s
No.391/18.
Adv. Anushka Shetty i/b MLS Vani and Co. for defendant present.
Heard Adv. Shetty and Adv. Gala on NM 4320/2017 and Ch/s
No.391/2018.
ORDER BELOW CH.S NO.391/2018
Heard Adv. Shetty for defendant and Adv. Gala for plaintiff. By the
present Ch/s, defendant is seeking direction to be issued to plaintiff
to give inspection of the documents relied along with plaint and
copy of contract No.CSPL/KW/SS/CLPL-MUM/08-09/0202. By
filing reply overleaf the same is strongly objected on the ground
that the said document of contract is not filed by them. Hence,
dismissal of Ch/s with cost is prayed.
According to Adv. Shetty the contract No.CSPL/KW/SS/CLPL-
MUM/08-09/0202 is with the plaintiff which they failed to file.
Being the crucial document, it is necessary to be looked into before
filing reply to SJ. Also the other documents filed by the plaintiff are
also material of which inspection is necessary. Whereas, Adv. Gala
submitted the plaintiff is not aware whether the original contract is
available with them or not.
Admittedly perusal of para 4 reveals there is mention of
contract No.CSPL/KW/SS/CLPL-MUM/08-09/0202 and the suit is
based on the said contract executed by and between plaintiff and
defendant. As the contract was executed by plaintiff with
defendant, then naturally the original contract will be with the
plaintiff only. Even the copy of the contract is not filed with the
plaint. According to Adv. Shetty non filing of the contract is
hampering the defendant from filing reply to SJ. Therefore, I am of
the view that inspection of the document filed along with the plaint
and contract No.CSPL/KW/SS/CLPL-MUM/08-09/0202 is
necessary for the defendant to file their reply to SJ. Hence, the
Ch/s deserves to be allowed with direction.
ORDER
1. The Ch/s No.391/2018 filed by defendant is allowed.
2. The plaintiff is directed to give inspection to defendant of the
documents relied along with the plaint, list of documents and also
contract No.CSPL/KW/SS/CLPL-MUM/08-09/0202.
3. The plaintiff to inform the defendant/advocate one week in-
advance the date of inspection.
-- 1 of 3 --
4. The Ch/s No.391/2018 is disposed of accordingly.
ORDER BELOW NM NO.4320/2017
By way of present NM the plaintiff is seeking condonation of delay
of 90 days in filing the SJ. The reason for delay according to
plaintiff was due to oversight of Jr. Adv. Sagar Dushan who forgot
to affirm the SJ on 23.08.2017. The fact came to knowledge on
28.10.2017 when the inspection of court record was taken. The
delay was not deliberate and intentional and no prejudice will
cause to defendant. By filing reply the NM is strongly objected on
the ground that no any supporting document is filed and instead
allegations are made again Jr. advocate. No any plausible reason is
given for delay. Hence, dismissal of NM is prayed.
Adv. Gala submitted that it was due to oversight the SJ which
was already drafted remained to be filed. The delay was not
deliberate or intentional one and plaintiff will suffer irreparable
loss if the SJ is not taken on record by condoning the delay.
Whereas, Adv. Shetty submitted that, no any affidavit of Adv. Sagar
Dushan is filed on record to show there was delay due to oversight.
The roznama reveals defendant No.1 to 5 appeared on
02.03.2017 and on 21.04.2017 filed draft NM 1526/2017 to
dismiss the suit. The said NM was dismissed on 24.03.2023. On
15.11.2017 the present NM came to be filed. The VP filed by
defendant No.1 to 5 was accepted by the court on 27.04.2017. As
per Sec.119 (4) of City Civil Court Rules, the SJ is to be filed within
6 months. As per the record available, the 6 months period expired
on 26.10.2017 and the NM was filed on 15.11.2017.Thus there is
delay of about 20 days in filing the SJ. The reason for delay is the
Jr. Adv. Dushan due to oversight failed to get the SJ affirm. I am of
the view that the delay is not huge so as to deny the plaintiff to file
the SJ. No plaintiff would cause delay to file SJ which ultimately
will cause irreparable loss. Therefore, I am of the view that the
delay needs to be condoned so as to decide the suit on merit rather
deciding it on technical ground. In the result to proceed to pass
following order -
ORDER
1. The NM No.4320/2017 filed by plaintiff is allowed with cost.
2. The delay of 20 days is condoned.
3. The NM No.4320/2017 is disposed of accordingly.
Adv. Gala filed draft SJ along with supporting affidavit TOR.
ORDER - Leave granted to register SJ.
Copy of draft SJ along with affidavit served on Adv. Shetty.
-- 2 of 3 --
Matter is adjourned to 25.09.2025 for SJ/Reply on SJ.
Judge
-- 3 of 3 --