Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 3241/22 in S.C.Suit No. 2314/19. 1 Order.
MHCC010097172022
Presented on : 05-09-2022
Registered on : 05-09-2022
Decided on : 06-04-2024
Duration : 1 years, 7 months, 1 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3241 OF 2022
IN
S. C. SUIT NO. 2314 OF 2019
Kamal Krushna Faware and others )...Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Laxman Kashinath Faware )...Plaintiff
Versus
Kamal Krushna Faware and others )...Defendants
Shri Saruesh Dubey, Advocate for the defendant no.1, 2, 4 and 5.
Smt. Aruna Chaudhary, Advocate for the plaintiff.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI U.C.DESHMUKH.
(COURT ROOM NO.66).
DATE : 6th APRIL, 2024.
ORDER
1. This notice of motion is taken out by defendant no.1, 2, 4
and 5 to condone the delay to file written statement.
2. Besides their case in the suit, defendants contend that they
had instructed their advocate to prepare written statement, however
-- 1 of 3 --
N/m No. 3241/22 in S.C.Suit No. 2314/19. 2 Order.
due to some fact their advocate could not file written statement. They
also contend that they are not aware as to the prescribed period of
limitation within which they ought to have file written statement.
Hence there is delay. Defendant specifically contend that they are in
possession of the suit premises since last 30 years, hence they have
substantial right. Therefore prayed to allow notice of motion.
3. The plaintiff in reply contends that there is no proper
explanation for such delay. Defendants appeared and filed vakalatnama
on 09/04/2021. The ignorance of law has no excuse. Hence prayed to
impose cost of Rs.30,000/- upon the defendants. Hence prayed to reject
the notice of motion.
4. Defendants have filed their written statement on record.
Learned advocate for the plaintiff argued that the delay may be taken
into consideration and notice of motion may be allowed on heavy cost.
5. Defendants did not deny that there is delay to file written
statement. It is their contention that due to some fact and ignorance of
prescribed period for filing written statement, they failed to file written
statement within time. It is needless to say that ignorance of law has no
excuse. However, defendants come with specific case that they have
legal rights and interest over the suit premises. In such circumstances, if
defendants are not permitted to file written statement, they will suffer
irreparable loss. During course of arguments, both advocates agree that
notice of motion to be disposed off and be allowed on cost. In such case,
it would be just and proper to permit defendants to file written
statement on cost. In the result, following order :
-- 2 of 3 --
N/m No. 3241/22 in S.C.Suit No. 2314/19. 3 Order.
- ORDER -
1. Notice of Motion No. 3241/2022 is allowed on cost of Rs.5,000/-
payable to the plaintiff within a month of the order.
2. On payment of aforesaid cost, written statement filed by
defendants be taken on record.
3. N/m No. 3241/2022 is disposed off accordingly.
(U.C.DESHMUKH)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
(Court Room No.66)
Date : 06/04/2024. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 06/04/2024.
2. Transcribed on : 10/04/2024.
3. Signed on : 15/04/2024.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
16/04/2024. 5.58 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri U.C.Deshmukh.
(Court Room No.66).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 06/04/2024.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 16/04/2024.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 16/04/2024.
-- 3 of 3 --