Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1344 OF 2018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 290 OF 2017
Arjun Ramani HUF ...Plaintiff
V/s.
National Laminate Corporation & Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearances:
Ld. Adv.Mr.Ramesh Jain for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv.Leena Sapra for defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ABHIJEET A.
NANDGAONKAR
(C.R.No.20)
DATED : 8th April,2019
ORDER
By way of this notice of motion, defendants sought relief for
condonation of delay of 59 days to file affidavit in reply to leave to
defend the Summons for Judgment and permission to tender their reply
to the Summons for Judgment for leave to defend on behalf of the
defendants.
2. In supporting affidavit of Mr.Jayantilal Nisar, defendant No.7 and
for all defendants submitted that, Summons for Judgment is served
upon the defendants on 9th January 2018. As per the provisions under
Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code, 10 days limitation period was
granted to file affidavit in reply to the Summons for Judgment, it
expired on 19/01/2018. As plaintiff has filed several other suits
against the defendants and various Summons for Judgments in that
MHCC01-004280-2018
-- 1 of 5 --
NM 1344/2018 .. 2 .. Suit No.290/2017
matters defendants mistakenly get along with other suits between the
same parties the said Summons for Judgment and therefore they are
not able to tender their reply for leave to defend to the Summons for
Judgment.
3. On 16/3/2018 after going through the papers, when they found
the copy of Summons for Judgment, immediately they given
instructions to the Advocate to prepare the draft reply, hence reply was
ready. There was delay of about 59 days. Therefore they prayed that
said delay of 59 days in filing reply in Summons for Judgment be
condone. Delay is not caused by them intentionally or deliberately and
as they have good case to succeed on merit and therefore sought relief
for condonation of delay thereby permission to file their reply to
Summons for Judgment in the interest of Justice and prayed that notice
of motion be made absolute.
3. After service of notice of motion upon the learned counsel for
plaintiff, the learned counsel for plaintiff tender their reply, however
the notice of motion strongly opposed to condonation of delay. They
submitted that defendants intentionally prolonged to file reply and
caused delay. Therefore condonation is to be subjected to heavy costs
and then notice of motion be disposed of.
4. Heard the learned counsel Leena Sapra for the defendants and
learned counsel Mr. Ramesh Jain for the plaintiff at length. Perused
submission of both sides.
5. Summary Suit No. 290 of 2017 was tendered for against the
defendants and in that suit Summons for Judgment was also tendered.
-- 2 of 5 --
NM 1344/2018 .. 3 .. Suit No.290/2017
It was admittedly served upon the defendants on 9th January, 2018.
Therefore within the prescribe period of 10 days defendants ought to
have to file their reply seeking leave to defend the suit. However, the
reasons mentioned and even admitted by both counsel that there are
various matters going on between the parties before this City Civil
Courts and due to which they have forgot to file the reply, may be just
and proper ground to get inadvertence delay in filing the reply within
stipulated period. Therefore, if delay may not be intentional and
deliberate that within 10 days if they tender their reply to the Summons
for Judgment, then permission / leave to defend the suit can be avail.
6. As this notice of motion lodged on 19th March, 2018 there was
delay of 59 days. Therefore, if the delay is to be condoned due to the
reasonable and sufficient grounds put forth by the defendants the
plaintiff needs to be compensated by awarding costs. Considering
submission of learned counsel for both parties, costs of Rs.100 per day
to condone the delay of 59 days i.e. Rs.5,900/ payable to the plaintiff
as condition precedent will suffice the ends of justice. Thereby the
defendants can be permitted to file their reply to the Summons for
Judgment. On compliance of the order on or before next date, the reply
to the Summons for Judgment filed by defendants be accepted. Non
compliance of the order will forfeit the right of defendants to tender the
reply and matter will be proceeded for Summons for Judgment. Hence
in view of the above discussion, notice of motion be made absolute.
Therefore I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
1. NM no. 1344/18 in Summary suit no. 290/18 is made absolute
subject to costs of Rs.5,900/ payable to the plaintiff as condition
-- 3 of 5 --
NM 1344/2018 .. 4 .. Suit No.290/2017
precedent to condone the delay of 59 days by taking reply to
Summons for Judgment no. 277/17 on record.
2. On compliance of the order on or before next date reply of
Summons for Judgment No.277/17 be accepted and taken on
record.
3. Non compliance of the order, S/J no.277/17 be heard
without reply.
( ABHIJEET A. NANDGAONKAR )
Judge, (C.R.No.20)
Dt.: 08/04/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. MUMBAI
Dictated on : 08.04.2019
Transcribed on : 08.04.2019
Signed on :
vvm/
-- 4 of 5 --
NM 1344/2018 .. 5 .. Suit No.290/2017
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
09.04.2019 at 2.00 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME
(MRS.V.V.MHATRE)
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge HHJ SHRI A.A.
NANDGAONKAR
(COURT ROOM NO.20)
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order 08.04.2019
Judgment/order signed by P.O. on 09.04.2019
Judgment/order uploaded on 09.04.2019
-- 5 of 5 --