Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: CNR No.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1433 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2488 OF 2017
M/s. Vikas Systems … Plaintiff
V/s.
M/s. IOT Infrastructure & Energy Services
Ltd. & Ors. … Defendants
Appearances :
Ld. Adv. Sundana Kayande for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Purva Jarge for defendant no.1.
Ld. Adv. Tulsi for defendant no.2 to 4.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI MILIND V. KURTADIKAR
(C.R. No.20)
DATED : 27th AUGUST, 2019
ORDER
Defendant No.1 has taken out this notice of motion for
setting aside no written statement order dated 13.02.2018.
2. It is argued that writ of summons was served on defendant
no.1 on 22.11.2017 without copy of plaint. On 29.11.2017 he has put
his appearance through his advocate. On that day also he has not got
copy of plaint. Finally on 12.01.2018 i.e. after two months of service of
summons plaintiff served copy of plaint to defendant no.1. Therefore,
defendant no.1 was not in a position to file written statement on
13.12.2018. However, on that day Court has passed no written
statement order. As the situation was beyond control of defendant no.1
he could not be blamed for the same. There is no delay on his part. So
MHCC010 045192018
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 1433/2018 .. 2 .. Suit No.2488/2017
written statement may be taken on record.
3. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has resisted this application on the
ground that there was intentional delay on the part of plaintiff. In fact
since first day plaintiff was ready and willing to serve copy of plaint on
defendant. The alleged delay is because of the fault of defendant no.1.
Therefore, his application may be rejected.
4. The reason given by defendant no.1 for not filing written
statement within time is that he has not received the copy of plaint. As
per reply given by plaintiff it is almost an admitted position that no
copy of plaint was sent with the suit summons and on 12.01.2018 copy
of plaint is served to defendant. It goes to show that copy of plaint was
not promptly served on defendant no.1. In such circumstances no one
can expect from defendant no.1 to file written statement. So the delay
was not because of fault of defendant no.1. Even it was not within his
control. Therefore, I am of the opinion that application needs to be
allowed by setting aside no written statement order. Accordingly the
order.
ORDER
1. NM No.1433/18 in SU No.2488/17 is hereby allowed.
2. No WS order dt.13.02.2018 passed against D1 is hereby
set aside and D1 is permitted to file his WS on record.
( MILIND V. KURTADIKAR )
Judge, (C.R. No.20)
Dt.: 27/08/2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 27.08.2019
Transcribed on : 28.08.2019
Signed on : 28.08.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 1433/2018 .. 3 .. Suit No.2488/2017
sbk/
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
28.08.2019 04.30 p.m. Sanjay Baliram Kaskar
(Stenographer Higher Grade)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri M.V. Kurtadikar
(CR No.20)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgement/Order.
27.08.2019.
Judgement/order signed by P.O on 28.08.2019.
Judgement/order uploaded on 28.08.2019.
-- 3 of 3 --