Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 1540/2019 SUM. SUIT NO. 585/2018 1
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1540 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 585 of 2018
(UNDER ORDER XXXVII THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908)
Pranav Mahendrakumar Salvi ...Plaintiff
Versus
Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd.
L.T Technology Centre and Ors. ...Defendants
Appearances:
Advocate Ms.Seema for the Plaintiff.
Advocate Mr.Dave for the Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
DEEPAK L. BHAGWAT
(C.R.NO.28)
DATE : 06th JANUARY 2020
J U D G M E N T
1. By this Notice of Motion the defendants requested to set aside Ex
parte order dtd.12.03.2019 passed against the defendants and to permit
the defendants to file Vakalatnama by condoning the delay of 42 days.
2. The plaintiff resisted the Notice of Motion.
3. The Ld Advocate on behalf of the defendants argued that though
the summons was received by the defendant office at Ballard Estate the
-- 1 of 4 --
NM 1540/2019 SUM. SUIT NO. 585/2018 2
envelope was not opened and it was forwarded to the office at Powai on
07th February 2019 The Exparte order came to be passed on 12 March
2019. Thereafter, the defendants came to know about it. Engaging
advocate, asking him to take necessary steps required some time.
Therefore, delay is caused. On these grounds the defendants requested
to allow the Notice of Motion.
4. On the other hand Ld Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff argued
that no good ground is made out to condone the delay. The deponent
Rajesh has no authority to file the Notice of Motion. On these grounds
he requested to reject the application.
5. It may be noted here that no one is claims to have appeared on
behalf of the defendants. There is nothing on the record to show that
the defendants opposed the filing of Notice of Motion by Rajesh B
Shetty. It can be gathered that the defendants have impliedly
authorized deponent Rajesh B Shetty to file the Notice of Motion.
6. So far as the reasons for setting aside Exparte order are
concerned, the defendants claim that summons was served at Ballard
Estate Office and the sealed envelope was forwarded to Powai office on
7th February 2019. However, this court must note that the Exparte
order was passed on 12th March 2019. It is not clear as to why the
defendants could not appear in between period of 7th February till 12th
March 2019. In other words, there is no explanation in respect of the
period from 7th February till 12th March. As regards the period after 12th
March reasons are satisfactorily mentioned that the defendants required
to engage advocate and ask him to take necessary steps. Some time may
have been required for it. However, as noted above no reason in respect
-- 2 of 4 --
NM 1540/2019 SUM. SUIT NO. 585/2018 3
of the period from 7th february to 12th march. Still considering the
shortness of delay it is just and proper to allow the Notice of Motion
giving an opportunity to the defendants to appear in the matter. In
these circumstances the Notice of Motion deserves to be allowed
subject to cost. Hence order as follows is passed:
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion 1540 of 2019 is allowed as under.
2. Exparte order dtd.12 th March 2019 passed against the defendants
is set aside and the appearance and Vakalatnama on behalf of the
defendants be taken on record by condoning the delay subject to cost
of Rs.3000/ to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants.
3. The Notice of Motion 1540 of 2019 is disposed off accordingly.
(Deepak L. Bhagwat)
AdHoc Judge,
Date: 06/01/2020 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 06/01/2020
Transcribed on : 06/01/2020
Signed on : 07/01/2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
08/01/2019 at 11.30p.m. Mrs.J.V.Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room No.) HHJ Shri.D.L.Bhagwat
(C.R.NO.28)
-- 3 of 4 --
NM 1540/2019 SUM. SUIT NO. 585/2018 4
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/Order 06/01/2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 07/01/2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 08/01/2019
-- 4 of 4 --