Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: ..1.. Order in N/M no.3088/25 in S.C.Suit 1130/2019
MHCC010064562025
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3088 OF 2025
IN
S.C.SUIT NO. 1130 OF 2019
Smt. Jaya Takakshi Chheda ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Ms. Tanuja Jayantilal Bhagat & Anr. ...Defendants.
Appearance:
Adv. Mr. Vijay Dubey for the Plaintiff.
Adv. Laxmi Mishra a/w Adv. Ashutosh Kaushik i/b Kaushik and Co. for
Defendants.
CORAM : SMT. A.K.MANDAVGADE
AD-HOC JUDGE, (C.R.NO.62)
DATE : 30.07.2026
ORAL ORDER
(Dictated in open Court)
The Notice of Motion is filed by defendants for condonation
of delay caused in filing written statement and to take written
statement on record.
2. As per contention of the defendants writ of summons was
served on 16/01/2020. However, copy of the plaint and notice of
motion was served on 15/09/2021 with letter issued by learned
-- 1 of 6 --
..2.. Order in N/M no.3088/25 in S.C.Suit 1130/2019
advocate for the plaintiff. Due to lockdown the defendants were unable
to attend the court and to meet advocate till 28/02/2022. There is also
relaxation of the period of lockdown as per order passed by Hon’ble
Apex Court. After said period of pandemic in March 2022 defendants
approached their advocate Shri Sachin Pawar who was requested to
return the papers to advocate Shri Ashok Pande. As staff was not
available in office of advocate Shri Pawar he sought some time for
sending papers. defendants were under impression that advocate Shri
Pande is appearing in the court, but no one was attending the court.
Thereafter advocate Shri Pawar informed defendants that the papers
were already sent to Advocate Shri Pande. Thereafter Advocate Pande
filed vakalatnama on 16/03/2023. In July 2023, defendants were
informed by advocate Pande that court is on leave and he will send
draft for approval to defendants. Thereafter he informed that the notice
of motion taken out by the plaintiff is kept for hearing. Thereafter again
in November 2023, defendants were informed by advocate Shri Pande
that court is on leave. Considering approach of advocate Shri Pande
defendants take back the papers and handed over to present advocate
in the first week of November 2024, who informed defendants that
delay is caused in filing written statement and reply to Notice of motion
No.3375/2019. The said fact was not informed to defendants by earlier
advocates. In the third week of November 2024, defendants supplied
papers to present advocate. In such situation, delay is caused in filing
written statement. Composite Notice of motion No.1432/2025 was filed
by defendants for condonation of delay caused in filing written
statement and recalling no reply order passed on 12/10/2022, in Notice
of Motion No.3375/2019. However separate notice of motion was
required to be filed, hence, present notice of motion is filed. The delay
is not intentional. There was fault on the part of advocate for
-- 2 of 6 --
..3.. Order in N/M no.3088/25 in S.C.Suit 1130/2019
defendants. Yet interlocutory application is not decided, hence no
prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if the application is allowed. If
the application is not allowed then defendants will suffer irreparable
loss.
3. As per reply affidavit Exh.5 filed by the plaintiff, the notice
of motion is frivolous. Hence liable to be dismissed. Writ of summons
was served on 27/12/2019. Vakalatnama was filed by advocate Shri
Pawar on 16/01/2020. After submission of advocate Shri Pawar that
plaint and proceedings were missing, again copy of plaint and notice of
motion was served on advocate for defendants on 15/09/2021. Present
notice of motion is taken out in April 2025 i.e. after delay of more than
3½ years. There is gross negligence on the part of defendants. Due to
lockdown there were restrictions till August 2021 only. There is no
justifiable reason for condonation of delay. If draft was ready in third
week of November 2024, then defendants could have filed the same at
that time only. Notice of Motion No.1432/2025 was filed for
condonation of delay caused in filing written statement and for
recalling order dated 12/10/2022. Defendants were directed to take out
separate notice of motion vide order dated 12/10/2022. Hence, the
plaintiff has prayed for rejection of notice of motion.
4. Heard both the sides. Perused the record.
5. As per affidavit of service writ of summons was served on
27/12/2019. Record also shows that advocate for the defendants had
filed appearance on 16/01/2020. Thereafter Notice of Motion
No.1432/2025 was filed on 24/02/2025 for condonation of delay
caused in filing written statement and for taking written statement on
-- 3 of 6 --
..4.. Order in N/M no.3088/25 in S.C.Suit 1130/2019
record as well as to recall order dated 12/10/2022 passed in Notice of
Motion No.3375/2019. That notice of motion was not pressed on
10/03/2026. Present notice of motion is tendered on 07/04/2025
which was registered on 13/06/2025. Thus from the record it is clear
that on 16/01/2020 itself appearance was filed by the defendants. Even
if it is accepted that there was lockdown then also it is clear that there is
considerable delay caused in taking out notice of motion for
condonation of delay caused in filing written statement. There is
negligence on the part of defendants as they were approaching their
advocate after regular functioning of courts after pandemic situation.
Further as per contention of defendants in the third week of November
2024, itself draft of written statement was supplied by their advocate. In
such situation there is substance in the contention of the plaintiff that
the defendants were negligent. However record also shows that yet
notice of motion taken out by plaintiff for appointment of Court
Receiver filed in the year 2019 is pending. Thus yet trial has not
commenced. In such situation, if delay is condoned then no prejudice
will be caused to any of the parties. On the other hand, it will be helpful
to decide the suit on merit. As delay is caused by defendants, cost needs
to be imposed on them. Hence, I pass following order :-
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.3088 of 2025 is allowed subject to cost of
Rs.1,000/- to be deposited by the defendants in the office of DLSA
within 15 days from the date of this order.
2. After depositing cost by the defendants within above said period
the written statement attached to Notice of Motion No.1432/2025
be taken on record.
-- 4 of 6 --
..5.. Order in N/M no.3088/25 in S.C.Suit 1130/2019
3. Failure of the defendants to comply with the order shall result in
cancellation of this order.
4. Accordingly, Notice of Motion is disposed of.
(Smt. A.K.Mandavgade)
Ad-hoc Judge
City Civil Court,
Date : 30.07.2026 Gr. Mumbai.
Pronounced on : 30.07.2026
Directly dictated on computer : 30.07.2026
Typed on : 30.07.2026
Checked & Signed on : 30.07.2026
-- 5 of 6 --
..6.. Order in N/M no.3088/25 in S.C.Suit 1130/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
Mrs. Manisha S. Putta	30.07.2026 6.30 PM
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ Smt. A.K.Mandavgade
(C.R.No. 62)
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGEMENT
/ORDER
30.07.2026
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 30.07.2026
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded on 30.07.2026
-- 6 of 6 --