Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010034062018
CNR NO. MHCC010034062018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1047 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.265 OF 2015
Mr. Nileshkumar Kantilal Shah .. Applicant
(Orig. Defendant)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Mr. Sanjay Magraj Jain … Plaintiff
V/s.
Mr. Nileshkumar Kantilal Shah ... Defendant
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Kritika Kothari for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Rutuja Lokare for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 14th MARCH, 2022
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 1047/18 in
Sum.Suit 265/15
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Notice of Motion is taken out by the defendant
for condonation of delay in filing reply to Summons for judgment. It
was submitted that, defendant was served with writ of summons and
thereafter plaintiff had taken out summons for judgement. But due to
continuous illness of spinal cord injury, the defendant could not give
instruction to his advocate and therefore there was delay of 137 days.
After taking instructions the Advocate for defendant filed the present
Notice of Motion. There was delay of 137 days. However the delay was
not intentional on the part of defendant and therefore, the delay be
condoned.
2. The plaintiff filed reply and denied the contention of
defendant. It was submitted that the delay is not explained properly
and the defendant deliberately filed the present Notice of Motion only
to delay the proceeding and therefore, the Notice of Motion be
dismissed.
3. Heard Learned Advocates for both the sides. The contents
are not reproduced. Admittedly there is delay in filing reply to
Summons for Judgement. The reason of delay cited by defendant
appears to be genuine and reasonable. The delay whichever caused
does not appear to be deliberate and intentional. The defendant wants
to file reply to defend the matter. It therefore seems that in order to
decide the real controversy between the parties it would be necessary to
allow the defendants to file reply to summons for judgment. If the delay
is not condoned, the defendant will suffer serious prejudice, whereas no
such harm would be caused to the plaintiff. Considering the nature of
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 1047/18 in
Sum.Suit 265/15
the suit an opportunity must be given to the defendant to to file reply to
summons for judgement and proceed with the matter. The delay being
properly explained, there appears to have been sufficient cause and
therefore, the delay is condoned. I, therefore, proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No.1047 of 2018 is allowed.
2. The delay in reply to summons for judgement is condoned.
3. The defendant shall file reply to summons for judgement on next
date.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 14032022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
direct Typed on : 14032022
checked on : 14032022
Signed on : 14032022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 1047/18 in
Sum.Suit 265/15
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
17032022 at 03.12 pm
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (YATISH R. JAGDALE)
NAME OF TYPIST
Name of the Judge HHJ SMT. R. K.
KSHIRSAGAR
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 14032022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 14032022
Judgment/order uploaded on 17032022
-- 4 of 4 --