Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1106 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2104 OF 2018
Mr. Shamrav Bhagvat pandav … Plaintiff
V/s.
Mr. Praful Krishna Chavan & Ors. … Defendants
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. S.K. Pise for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Gaikwad for defendant no.1.
Ld. Adv. Abbas Rizvi for defendant no.2.
None present for defendant nos.3 to 5.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R. No.20)
DATED : 24th JULY, 2019
ORDER
Defendant has taken out this notice of motion for taking his
written statement on record by condoning the delay of 32 days.
2. It is argued on behalf of defendant no.2 that defendant has
received the WOS on 21.12.2018. That time he was attending the
police station and M.M. Court in respect of FIR No.19/2017. Therefore,
he could not appear in this matter nor could inform his advocate for
appearance. Because of that reason even he could not give instructions
to his Ld. Counsel for preparing the written statement. As such there is
delay of 32 days in filing the written statement. Defendant is ever
MHCC010028512019
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 1106/2019 .. 2 .. Suit No.2104/2018
ready to proceed with the suit. He has every hope of success.
Therefore, opportunity may be given to him to defend his case.
3. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has resisted the application on
the ground that when suit summons was served on 21.12.2018 it was
the duty of defendant no.2 to file written statement within time. He
was well aware about the time limit of filing written statement. Even
then he has not taken care to file it within time. Therefore, the delay
may not be condoned and there is no reason to give opportunity to the
defendant no.2 to file written statement.
4. Admittedly there is delay of 32 days in filing the written
statement. Now the reason shown by defendant no.2 is of his
engagement to police station and M.M. Court in respect of crime
no.19/17. In absence of contrary material, I have no reason to
disbelieve said reason for not filing written statement in time. As far as
possible party should not be condemned unheard nor opportunity can
be deprived on technical grounds. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
defendant can be permitted to file his written statement on record.
Considering the delay of 32 days certain cost can be imposed.
Accordingly the order.
ORDER
1. NM No.1106/19 in SU No.2104/18 is hereby allowed.
2. The delay of 32 days in filing the WS by defendant no.2 is
condoned on defendant no.2 paying cost of Rs.2,000/ to
plaintiff on or before next date or to deposit it in the Court.
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 1106/2019 .. 3 .. Suit No.2104/2018
3. On compliance of cost order WS of defendant no.2 be
taken on record.
( MILIND V. KURTADIKAR )
Judge, (C.R. No.20)
Dt.: 24/07/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 24.07.2019
Transcribed on : 01.08.2019
Signed on : 03.08.2019
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 B. Kaskar
(StopGap Stenographer)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.V. Kurtadikar
(CR No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
24.07.2019.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 03.08.2019.
Judgement/order uploaded on 07.08.2019.
-- 3 of 3 --