Interim Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 04-04-2025 Court Room No.84 – Summary Court, Mumbai
Coram : Shri V. S. Hingne, Additional District Judge,
SUMMARY
CIVIL SUIT/
100595/2021
Cogencis Information Services Vs R. J. Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd.
@ Notice of
Motion
No.0101128/2025
@ Summons for
Judgment No.
0100225/2024
Exh.07
Adv Diksha Shinde present for plaintiff.
Adv Mustafa Chitalwala present for defendant.
Exh.07- Plaintiff filed reply on Notice of Motion No.101128 / 2025.
Kept back
Later on at 13.59 Hrs.
Adv Diksha Shinde present for plaintiff.
Adv Mustafa Chitalwala present for defendant.
Kept back for order in second half.
Later on at 14.50 Hrs.
Adv Diksha Shinde present for plaintiff.
Adv Mustafa Chitalwala present for defendant.
Heard both side on Notice of Motion No. 0101128/2025
Through said notice of motion No.101128/2025, defendant has prayed for
condonation of delay of 78 days in filing leave to defend.
Plaintiff has opposed the notice of motion.
Relevant dates for adjudication of notice of motion are as follows -
25.09.2020 – Suit is filed.
23.08.2023 – Defendant filed Vakilpatra.
19.03.2024 – Plaintiff filed draft copy of summons for judgment.
04.11.2024 – Plaintiff filed registered copy of summons for judgment.
06.12.2024 – Copy of summons for judgment is served on defendant.
12.02.2025 – Defendant filed notice of motion for condonation of delay.
According to defendant, due to business commitment during December-
2024, he was constantly traveling, hence, it became difficult for him to co-
ordinate and provide necessary instructions to the lawyer, causing delay of
78 days.
Defendant being businessmen, said explanation is reasonable.
Perusal shows that after the defendant filed vakilpatra on 23.08.2023, the
plaintiff tendered the draft copy of summons for judgment on 19.03.2024
and filed the registered copy only on 04.11.2024.
-- 1 of 2 --
Plaintiff did not give any explanation as to why it took this much time for
the plaintiff to file the draft copy and thereafter the registered copy.
If any party, for technical reasons, is deprived of raising its case, then it
may result in improper adjudication. That may lead to complexity in the
dispute and may also lead to multiplicity of litigation. If that happens, then
it drags the parties into further litigation, causing serious prejudices to
them. Hence, it is always in the interest of justice that, both contesting
parties are provided sufficient opportunities to raise their contentions and
to prove their case.
Considering all these facts, it would be just and proper that the delay is
condoned, but subject to payment of the costs. Considering claim of
Rs.59,384/- and delay of 78 days, then in that circumstances, costs of
Rs.3,000/- would be proper. Hence, following order -
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 101128 / 2025, is allowed, subject to Cost
of . 3,000/- ( .Three Thousand Only), as follows -	₹ ₹
From said costs of .3,000/- ( .Three Thousand),	₹ ₹
.2,000/- ( .Two Thousand Only) be paid to plaintiff and	₹ ₹
.1,000/-( .One Thousand Only) be paid to DLSA,	₹ ₹
Mumbai.
2. Defendant shall pay said Cost by next date.
3. If defendant pays the Cost by next date, then the delay caused to
him, in filing his Leave to Defend, shall stand condoned. Then,
the Leave to Defend of defendant be taken on record, forthwith.
4. If defendant fails to pay the Cost, then Summons for Judgment
shall proceed without Leave to Defend.
5. Parties be informed about their right to challenge this Order
and period of limitation for same.
6. Proceeding of Notice of Motion No. 101128 / 2025 is closed.
7. Order pronounced in Open Court.
8. Record of Notice of Motion shall be part of Summary Suit No.
100595 / 2021.
Suit is adjourned to 07.05.2025 for compliance.
Judge
-- 2 of 2 --