Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Chs 820 of 2019 in Sum. Suit 911/17
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 820 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 911 of 2017
CNR NO.: MHCC010041002019
Gopal Kanayalal Talreja ...Plaintiff
Versus
Tornado Motors Private Ltd. & Ors. … Defendants
Appearances:
Advocate Ms. Kavita Lalwani for the Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Subhash Vasaval for the defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI.M.S.LONE
(C.R.NO.28)
DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER 2019
ORDER
This is Chamber Summons for condonation of delay for 408 days
to file reply to Summons for Judgment.
2. Heard Learned counsel for defendant and Learned counsel for
plaintiff.
3. From the material on record following points come for my
determination and my findings with reasons are as follows:
POINTS FINDINGS
1.Whether there is sufficient cause
to condone the delay of 408 days
to file reply to Summons for
Judgment?
Yes
2. What order? As per final order
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Chs 820 of 2019 in Sum. Suit 911/17
REASONS
AS TO POINT NOS.1 &2.
4. The Learned counsel for defendant has submitted that defendant
is a layman and not aware of the special procedure adopted in the
present case. The advocate on record did not appear on the dates fixed
for filling reply to Summons for Judgment. After passing of exparte
order, the advocate lodged the track of the matter and therefore there is
delay to file reply to Summons for Judgment. The delay is not
intentional and defendant has good case on merits. Therefore, this
application.
5. The Learned counsel for plaintiff has replied to this application
and had stated that deliberately the reply to Summons for Judgment is
not filed by the defendant. The delay is intentional to drag this case.
Therefore, their application be rejected.
6. From the record it can be seen that there is delay of 408 days to
file reply to Summons for Judgment on behalf of defendant. The
defendant has taken ground of negligence of advocate and being
unaware about this special procedure in summary suits. Without taking
any harsh view and as defendant is interested to contest this suit, it will
be proper to give defendant a fair chance. The delay can be
compensated. Therefore, point No. 1 is answered as 'Yes' and following
order is passed.
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 820 of 2019 is allowed.
2. The delay of 408 days to file reply to Summons for Judgment of
defendant is condoned subject to cost of Rs.4,000/ to be paid to
plaintiff.
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Chs 820 of 2019 in Sum. Suit 911/17
3. On payment of cost, reply to Summons for Judgment shall be
taken on record.
4. Chamber Summons No. 820 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly.
(M.S.LONE)
Judge,
Date: 30/09/2019 City Civil Court,Gr. Bombay
Dictated on : 30.09.2019
Transcribed on : 30.09.2019
Signed on : 01.10.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Chs 820 of 2019 in Sum. Suit 911/17
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
03/10/2019 1.12 p.m. Prachi Y. Potdar (H.G.)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri. M.S.Lone
(C.R.NO.28)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
30/09/2019
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 01/10/2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 03/10/2019
-- 4 of 4 --