Full Order Text
Final Order 1 · 01 Mar 2021 · CNR MHCC010031982019
Order Details: Notice of Motion Pdf Text: NM No.1246/2019 L.C. Suit No.1634/2008 MHCC01-003198-2019 IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1246 OF 2019 (CNR NO. : MHCC01-003198-2019) IN L.C. SUIT NO. 1634 OF 2008 Mr. Yashwant S/o. Narayan More ) of Bombay, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, ) residing at Room No.3, Mistry Chawl, ) Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028 . )….Plaintiff Versus 1. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation, ) a Body corporation incorporated under the ) provisions of BMC Act having its office ) at Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika Marg, ) Mumbai – 400 001. ) 2. Madhav Nagar Co-op. Housing Society ) Ltd., a Society incorporated under the ) provions of Maharashtra Co-operative ) Societies Act, having its office at ) Bhavani Shankar Road, Dadar (West), ) Mumbai – 400 028. )....Defendants APPEARANCE:- Ld. Adv. Mr. Ashok Singh h/f Adv. A.M. Saraogi for the plaintiff. Ld. Adv. Mrs. Dipali Patil for the defendant No.1/MCGM Ld. Adv. Ajit Kocharekar for the defendant No.2. CORAM : HER HONOUR AD-HOC JUDGE SMT. C. P. JAIN (C.R.NO.06) DATED : 1st MARCH, 2021. O R D E R Read Notice of Motion, Reply filed by plaintiff, rejonder of defendant No.2. Heard both the learned advocates. -- 1 of 5 -- NM No.1246/2019 ..2.. L.C. Suit No.1634/2008 2. This Notice of Motion is taken out by defendant No.2 praying to condone the delay caused in filing written statement and to permit it to file his written statement on record. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of Notice of Motion, the main thrust of defendant No.2 is that writ of summons was not served upon him. He had appeared through his advocate and contested the notice of motion. Therefore, there is no limitation for filing notice of motion. If plaintiff had taken steps for service of writ of summons, defendant No.2 would have filed his written statement. His written statement was ready on 02.03.2019. Delay is not deliberate and intetional. 4. In rebuttal learned advocate for plaintiff has relied upon the observations in the case of Mr. Suresh Daduram Abnave V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in Appeal from Order No.807/2011 decided on 23.10.2013. In this cited case it is observed in Paragraph-12 as follows - “The filing of vakalatnama and/or appearance of the parties through advocate, in my view, amounts to service of summons for all the purpose. The time to file written statement within 30 days, from the date of appearance/service of summons, in given facts and circumstances, requires to be considered by the Court basically when the suit was not registered for want of delay and/or for other such circumstances. The submission that the fresh writ of summons should be served even after service of summons and though parties appeared through advocate in Notice of Motion and/or interim application, is unacceptable as what would cause great injustice and hardship to the plaintiff and/or the parties one who has already served the Defendants/other parties though at the interim stage and/or Notice of Motion Stage. There is no question of issuing fresh notice and/or multiple notices and/or services of warrant of summons at every stage of the pending legal proeedings. There is no provision for engaging an Advocate in respect of each and -- 2 of 5 -- NM No.1246/2019 ..3.. L.C. Suit No.1634/2008 every stage of the proceeding separately. Neither it is contemplated in any of the provisions so quoted above” 5. In light of aforesaid observations, the submission of learned advocate for defendant that writ of summons was not served to defendant No.2 do not hold water. Defendant No.2 had appeared through his advocate and contested the notice of motion. According to defendant No.2 his written statement was ready. Therefore, in light of aforesaid observations, it was incumbent upon defendant No.2 to file the written statement on record. Therefore, there is delay in filing written statement on record. 6. In the case of R.N. Jadi & Brothers V/s. Subhashchandra reported in (2007) 6 SCC 420 it is observed that, Procedural law is handmaid of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be constructed in an manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. 7. Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC is directory in nature. It is always in the interest of justice and parties that the suit is decided on merits. Denying opportunity to defendant No.2 to file his written statement and contest the suit will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Suit needs to be decided on merits by giving opportunity to defendant. Therefore, -- 3 of 5 -- NM No.1246/2019 ..4.. L.C. Suit No.1634/2008 notice of motion of defendant deserves to be allowed on costs. Therefore, I proceed to pass following order. ORDER 1. Notice of Motion No.1246/2019 is hereby allowed subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand Only), to be paid by defendant No.2 to plaintiff on or before next date. 2. Upon depositing the costs as per clause (1) of this order, the delay caused in filing its written statement shall stand condoned and the written statement tendered on record by defendant No.2 shall be taken on record. 3. Notice of Motion No.1246/2019 is accordingly disposed of. (SMT C.P. Jain) Ad-hoc Judge, (C.R.No.06) Date :01.03.2021 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay Dictated on com : 01.03.2021. Checked on : 03.03.2021. Signed on : 03.03.2021. -- 4 of 5 -- NM No.1246/2019 ..5.. L.C. Suit No.1634/2008 “CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.” UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 05.03.2021, 11.54 am. NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mr. Harshal D. Jagtap Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Smt. C.P. Jain C.R. No.06 Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ORDER 01.03.2021 JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 03.03.2021 JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 05.03.2021 -- 5 of 5 --
