Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: :1: N.M. No.1354/2018 in Summary Suit No.288/2014
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1354 OF 2018
CNR NO.: MHCC010042972018
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 288 OF 2014
Jaishankar Rajmani Mishra ...Plaintiff
Versus
Padmakar R. Das and another ...Defendants.
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Pande for the plaintiff.
None for the defendants.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
S.P. AGARWAL
(C.R.NO.28)
DATED : 17th JUNE, 2019.
ORAL ORDER
1. This Notice of Motion is filed by plaintiff to set aside the dismissal
order dated 22.03.2017 and to restore the suit. It is further prayed that
delay of 88 days in taking out Notice of Motion also be condoned.
2. It appears that defendant failed to file reply to this Notice of
Motion. Plaintiff has stated that he appointed Advocate Shri Sajneeve
Mishra to attend the case before the Court and the Advocate told
plaintiff that as and when the presence of plaintiff is required in the
Court, he will call the plaintiff to the Court. Plaintiff has further stated
that he could not hear any development in the matter, therefore, on
21.07.2017, he sent Letter to the said Advocate to know the status of
the case. Plaintiff has further stated that the Ld. Advocate did not give
any reply, therefore, plaintiff personally gone to the Court for enquiry
and came to know that on 22.03.2017 the suit is dismissed. Plaintiff has
further stated that he was trying to approach some good and reasonable
-- 1 of 3 --
:2: N.M. No.1354/2018 in Summary Suit No.288/2014
Advocate who could attend matter regularly and charge fees
reasonably, but the plaintiff could not get reasonable Advocate as their
charges were too high and finally plaintiff approached the present
Advocate with request to take out appropriate proceedings for
restoration of suit. Plaintiff has further stated that if delay is not
condoned and suit is not restored then great injustice will be caused to
him. Plaintiff has further stated that the balance of convenience lies in
his favour.
3. It is pertinent to see that defendant has not denied of reasons
stated by plaintiff for not appearing in the case and for the delay in
filing Notice of Motion. As all the contentions of plaintiff have remained
unchallenged, it appears plaintiff did not appear in the Court due to
reason that he thought that on his Advocate calling he will appear in the
matter and in finding reasonable lawyer time was spent. Hence, it
appears plaintiff has satisfactorily explained reason for his non
appearing in the suit and delay in filing Notice of Motion. Hence, it will
be proper to allow Notice of Motion and restore the suit. Hence,
following Order:
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.1354 of 2018 is allowed.
2. Summary Suit No.288 of 2014 stands restored.
3. Notice of Motion No.1354 of 2018 stands disposed of.
(S.P. AGARWAL)
Judge,
Date: 17.06.2019. City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 17.06.2019
Transcribed on : 17.06.2019
Signed on : 17.06.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
:3: N.M. No.1354/2018 in Summary Suit No.288/2014
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
24.06.2019 At 02:22 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.28)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
17.06.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 17.06.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 24.06.2019
-- 3 of 3 --