Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM 1048/20
MHCC010029602020
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1048 OF 2020
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 221 OF 2017
State Bank of India
a Corporation constituted under the
State Bank of India, Act 1955 having
their Head Office at New Administrative
Building, Madame Cama Road, Nariman
Point, Mumbai 400021 and having one
of the Branch at Deonara Branch,
Sion-Trombay Road, Govandi,
Mumbai 400 088. ….. Plaintiff.
VERSUS
Mr. Bhaven Ghanshyam Salvi
Age : 40 years, Indian Inhabitant,
Occu : Business, currently residing
at Room No.14, Ground Floor,
Calcuttawala Building, Dr. B. Ambedkar
Road, Parel, Mumbai 400 010 ...... Defendant.
Appearances: Ld. Advocate Ms. Shilpa i/b Mr. Santosh Sanjkar for the
plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Adv. Mayur Agrawal i/b. Rahul P. Jain
for the defendant.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 1048/20
CORAM : HIS HONOUR AD-HOC JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C.R. NO. 28)
DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2021
ORDER
1. Vide present notice of motion, the defendant requested to
condone delay of 38 days caused in filing Vakalatnama on his behalf.
The plaintiff resisted the notice of motion.
2. Heard Ld. Advocates on behalf of both the parties. Perused
the record.
3. The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the defendants argued that
the summons has been served at a place where the defendant has not
been residing but his mother resides. She on receiving summons kept
the same aside for many days and handed it over to him only on
24.11.2019, when he visited her. Therefore, delay is caused to file
Vakalatnama. Therefore, he requested to allow the notice of motion.
4. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff
argued that the delay is not of 38 days but it is of 44 days. It is argued
on behalf of the plaintiff that no satisfactory reason is mentioned to
condone the delay. Therefore, request is made to reject the notice of
motion.
5. The summons has been served on defendant on
11.10.2019. The defendant was required to appear within 10 days.
Thus, the defendant ought to have appeared on or before 21.10.2019.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 1048/20
However, it appears that the defendant has filed the notice of motion on
05.12.2019, although it appears that the notice of motion was affirmed
already on 28.11.2019. Thus, although affirmed on 28.11.2019,
actually notice of motion is filed on 05.12.2019. Therefore, contention
on behalf of the plaintiff that there has been delay of 44 days and not
38 days, is acceptable and correct. So far as the reason for delay is
concerned, the ground mentioned is that the defendant does not reside
at the given address. His mother gave him summons on 24.11.2019,
when he visited her. Thereby the delay is caused. Same contentions are
on affidavit. The reply is not on affidavit. Therefore, the contentions
of the defendant are reliable and also seem to be probable. Considering
the same and quantum of delay, it is just and proper to condone delay,
of course subject to costs. Hence, order as follows is passed:-
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 1048 of 2020 is allowed subject to costs as
under.
2. Delay caused to the defendant to file Vakalatnama is condoned and
Vakalatnama be taken on record subject to costs of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One
Thousand Only) to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant.
(Deepak L. Bhagwat)
Ad-hoc Judge,
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Date: 23.02.2021
Dictated on : 23.02.2021
Transcribed on : 24.02.2021
Date of sign : 24.02.2021
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 1048/20
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE & TIME : 24.02.2021 5.00 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : S.S.BATHE
Name of Judge (with Court Room No.) Shri.D.L.Bhagwat
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT /ORDER
23.02.2021
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 24.02.2021
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded on 24.02.2021
-- 4 of 4 --