Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: N.M. No. 1345/2018 in Sum. Suit No.88/2017
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1345 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC010042812018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 88 OF 2017
Shah Vanaji Kesaji & Co. ]...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Mutha Jewellers and others ]...Defendants.
Appearances:
Advocate Solanki Chaula for the plaintiff.
Advocate Sapra for the defendants.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.9)
DATED : 30th JANUARY, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. Defendant has stated that their Advocate was in personal
difficulty with illhealth and therefore, could not file reply to Summons
for Judgment and prayed for condonation of delay of 60 days.
2. Plaintiff has contended that defendants deliberately avoided to
serve the copy of the Notice of Motion immediately but it was served
through courier which shows that the conduct of the defendants to take
the matter casually. Defendants have contended that they have filed one
test report and Doctor's Prescription and it is a report of a Sonography
and accordingly some medicine were prescribed and such medical
report does not demonstrate or justify any reason as to why the
defendants did not file any reply to Summons for Judgment. Plaintiff
-- 1 of 3 --
:2: N.M. No. 1345/2018 in Sum. Suit No.88/2017
has further contended that defendants have not filed affidavit of
Advocate Miss Leena Sapra explaining her medical condition and the
medical report appears to be more of the routine checkup done by her.
3. On perusing the medical report it appears that Sonography is
done and there was a remark that “Mild hepatomegaly with fatty
infiltration of liver”. It appears that the report is supported by the
Prescription by Doctor's. It prima faciely shows that the concern person
was ill, and therefore, medical Prescription was given by doctor. Hence,
it is probable that the Advocate was not having good health. But it
appears that defendants could have appointed other lawyer to file reply
to Summons for Judgment. But considering the facts that the Advocate
of defendants was ill, it appears that the delay is not intentional. Hence,
it will be proper to condone delay subject to compensatory cost to
plaintiff. Hence, following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.1345/2018 is allowed, subject to cost of
Rs.1,000/ to be given by defendants to plaintiff.
2. Notice of Motion No.1345/2018 stands disposed of.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 30.01.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 30.01.2019
Transcribed on : 30.01.2019
Signed on : 30.01.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
:3: N.M. No. 1345/2018 in Sum. Suit No.88/2017
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
31.01.2019 At 5:11 p.m. Mr. Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ Ms. S.P. Agarwal
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
30.01.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 30.01.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 31.01.2019
-- 3 of 3 --