Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010037192019
CNR NO. MHCC010037192019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.79 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO.279 OF 2015
Mr. Jagdish P. Jhawar .. Applicant
(Orig. Defendant)
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
M/s. Shree LTC Export India Ltd. … Plaintiff
V/s.
Mr. Jagdish P. Jhawar ... Defendant
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Vijay Sharma for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Amar K. Shilwant for defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. R.K. KSHIRSAGAR
(C.R.No.13)
DATED : 20th AUGUST, 2022
-- 1 of 4 --
2 NM 79/2019 in
Sum.Suit 279/15
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/leave
to defend. It was submitted that, defendant was served with writ of
summons and thereafter plaintiff had taken out summons for judgment.
But as the defendant was residing at Bangalore, he could not give
instruction to his advocate and therefore there was delay of 80 days.
After taking instructions the Advocate for defendant filed the present
Notice of Motion. There was delay of 80 days. However the delay was
not intentional on the part of defendant and therefore, the delay be
condoned.
2. The plaintiff failed to filed say However argued the matter
orally 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 Judgment. 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
-- 2 of 4 --
3 NM 79/2019 in
Sum.Suit 279/15
the nature of the suit an opportunity must be given to the defendant to
to file reply to summons for judgment 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.79 of 2019 is allowed.
2. The delay in reply to summons for judgment/ leave to defend is
condoned.
3. The defendant shall file reply to summons for judgment/leave to
defend on next date.
4. No order as to costs.
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
Dt.: 20082022 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
direct typed on : 20082022
checked on : 20082022
Signed on : 22082022
( Smt. R. K. Kshirsagar )
Judge, (C.R.No.13)
City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
-- 3 of 4 --
4 NM 79/2019 in
Sum.Suit 279/15
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
24.08.2022 at 5.20 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME (YATISH R. JAGDALE)
NAME OF TYPIST
Name of the Judge H.H.J.Smt.R.K.Kshirsagar
(COURT ROOM NO.13)
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
20.08.2022
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 22.08.2022
Judgment/order uploaded on 24.08.2022
-- 4 of 4 --