Skip to main content
NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr. Pratap Ganpat KachareVsEatnest John and Company Ltd and Ors.

CNR MHCC01002845202028-COURT 28 ADD SESSIONS JUDGE
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
CASE DISPOSED
Contested--ALLOWED
Decision Date: 06th March 2020

TrustJury record updated 28 Sept 2026

Case Overview

Registration Number
101014/2020
Registration Date
06 Mar 2020

Advocates

2

For Petitioner

For Respondent

Parties

2

Acts & Sections

1
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act · Sec 9

Case History / Proceedings

Case History
Date: 06-03-2020
Business: Adv. Gujar for plaintiff file reply to Draft NM filed by defendant.
Representative of defendant present.
Adv. Sushant for defendant filed Register NM 1014/20 @ affidavit.
Heard argument on NM on behalf of both the parties.
ORDER- The Ld advocate on behalf of the plaintiff argued that no sufficient reason is made out to condone the delay. There is no material to prove the contentions of the defendants. The grounds as raised by the defendants are after thought, therefore She urged to reject the Notice of Motion.
On perusal of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion it appears that the delay caused to file the reply is of only 5 days. Even the plaintiff does not dispute that the reply is filed with delay of 5 days. Ofcourse, the notice of motion has been taken out subsequently i.e. after filing of reply. The reasons for delay are that the advocate was not attending his office from 29th November to 5th December. The summons was received by the peon. On 5th december when the advocate resumed the office, he was under the impression that the summons has been served on the same date i.e. 5th December 2018. The reasons as mentioned are satisfactory to condone the delay and accept the reply on record. It may be noted here that the defendants had already appeared, however, ex-parte order was passed against them after their appearance. Considering overall circumstances, and in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the defendant to put their contentions in the form of reply/leave to defend, it is just and proper to set aside the Ex-parte decree, condone the delay caused to file the reply and accept the reply on record subejct to cost.
Hence, the Notice of Motion 1014/20 is allowed and the Ex-parte order dtd.30.07.2019 passed against the defendants is set aside and delay caused to file the affidavit in reply is condoned and the affidavit in reply be taken on record subject to cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants.
Adjd for Compliance and Hearing to 02-07-2020
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 06-03-2020

Additional Case Details

Additional Case Details
Filing Number: 103212/2020
Filing Date: 06-03-2020
First Hearing Date: 06th March 2020
Decision Date: 06th March 2020
Court Number And Judge: 28-COURT 28 ADD SESSIONS JUDGE

Orders

1
Final Order 1Full order available
06 Mar 2020

Order Details: Notice of Motion Pdf Text: 45 Dt: 06.03.2020 SUM 888/18 SJ 352/18 NM 1014/20 ...SUM 888/18 SJ 352/18 NM 1014/20 CORAM : H.H.J SHRI. DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT(C.R.NO.28) Adv. Gujar for plaintiff file reply to Draft NM filed by defendant. Representative of defendant present. Adv. Sushant for defendant filed Register NM 1014/20 @ affidavit. Heard argument on NM on behalf of both the parties. ORDER: The Ld advocate on behalf of the plaintiff argued that no sufficient reason is…

Read Full Order

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.